Pankaj Manikrao Salave Through ... vs Directorate Of Technical ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 311 Bom

                                                   1/5
                                                                                         wp-8441-15.doc


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                                       
                                 WRIT PETITION NO.8441 OF 2015




                                                               
                                            ...
    Pankaj Manikrao Salave                                 ...Petitioner
          v/s.
    Directorate of Technical Education 




                                                              
    and ors.                                               ...Respondents
                                            ...
    Mr.Ashok B. Tajane for the Petitioner.
    Ms.S.S.Bhende, AGP for State.
    Mr.A.K.Jalisatgi for Respondent No.2.




                                                  
                                            ... 
                                   ig                 CORAM  :    ANOOP V. MOHTA & 
                                                                 A.A.SAYED, JJ.

DATED : 10 SEPTEMBER 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Anoop V. Mohta, J.)

Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

2. The Petitioner had admittedly applied for admission to degree

course in Engineering/Technology for the academic year 2015-16 in

Respondent No.2-University as per the information gathered from the other

sources on 13 August 2015. Respondent No.2-University does not dispue this

position.

3. Admittedly the fourth round (counseling round) was over on 7

August 2015. The candidates were supposed to report upto 11 August 2015.

The Respondent No.2-University admittedly neither advertised the vacant

Uday P. Kambli 1/5

wp-8441-15.doc

seats before the cut-off date i.e. 14 August 2015 nor circulated the

information about the vacancy on the website. This inaction definitely needs

to be deprecated that has resulted in seven vacant seats remaining unfilled.

The Petitioner was not successful in getting admission based upon merit,

inspite of fourth round (counseling round). Therefore, there is no question

of granting such admission to the Petitioner, which is not merit based,

merely because he has applied based upon private source of information and

in the University where admittedly there was no advertisement of those

vacant seats for the benefit of public/students at large.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied upon Rules

for Admission to First Year of Four Year Full Time Degree Courses in

Engineering/Technology for the Academic Year 2015-16 and specifically

Annexure-II (Guidelines for the Admission Process to be carried out by

Unaided Colleges) and submitted that there is no specific Rule or Regulation

for the University to deny the admission merely because of no advertisement

by the University.

5. We are not inclined to accept this submission as it is settled by

the Supreme Court that the due process need to be followed even after the

last round is declared, i.e. due and clear advertisement before filling any

vacant seat by a private Institution including the University like the

Uday P. Kambli 2/5

wp-8441-15.doc

Respondent in question. For want of advertisement there was no question of

the Petitioner even to apply for such vacant, stated seat, which is admittedly

not merit based.

6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has pointed out the

advertisement issued by other institute of `Notice of Institute Level Round'

dated 13 August 2015 of about three colleges. The same was admittedly not

issued by the Respondent-University. This is in no way sufficient to consider

the case of the Petitioner to grant admission in the Respondent-University

without any prior advertisement/publication.

7. The judgment of the Supreme Court was referred and relied

upon by the learned AGP appearing for Respondents Nos. 1 & 3 and

submitted that in view of this judgment also there is no question to grant

admission at this stage, where admittedly academic session is already

commenced on 27 July 2015 itself.

8. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that

the schedules so declared cannot be said to be mandatory in the peculiar

facts and circumstances and relief can be granted. However considering the

reasons so recorded above, we are not inclined to accept this submission

also.

    Uday P. Kambli                                  3/5






                                                                                            wp-8441-15.doc

9. No case is made out by the Petitioner to grant any relief as

prayed. The Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.

     (A.A. SAYED, J.)                                                  (ANOOP V. MOHTA J.)




                                                                 
                                                   
                                  
                                 
      
   






    Uday P. Kambli                                      4/5






                                                                                          wp-8441-15.doc


                                            CERTIFICATE




                                                                                        

Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed

Judgment/order.

    Uday P. Kambli                                    5/5