Bombay High Court
Vishal Anil Sanap vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 7 July, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6696 OF 2016
Vishal Anil Sanap,
Age : 19 years, Occu. Student,
R/o at post Raimoha,
Tq. Shirur (Kasar),
District Beed PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Health and Science Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2.
Admission Regulating Authority
of State, CET Cell,
305, Government Polytechnic Building,
49, Kherwadi, Aliyawar Jung Marg,
Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051
3. Commissioner and Competent Authority
State Common Entrance Examination Cell,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai RESPONDENTS
----
Smt. Vaishali R. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mrs. M.A. Deshpande, A.G.P. for the respondents
----
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 7TH JULY, 2016
JUDGMENT (PER : SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.) :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With
the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner
2 wp6696-2016
and the learned A.G.P., the petition is heard finally.
3. Non-consideration of the claim of the
petitioner against the seat reserved for the children of
Ex-Defence personnel for admission to Undergraduate
Health Courses, has given rise to this writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner filed online application for one
year Undergraduate Health Sciences Course for the
academic year 2016-2017. He successfully passed MHT-CET
2016 prescribed for the admission for the said courses
by obtaining 167 marks out of 200. He had claimed the
benefit of the reservation from N.T. (D) category and
also as the ward of an ex-serviceman. However, his
claim for getting admission on account of being the ward
of ex-serviceman came to be rejected since he had not
clicked on the option of "DEF-1" given in the other
details column at serial No. 9 of the online application
form. She submits that the candidature of the
petitioner should not have been rejected on this hyper
technical ground. According to her, for want of
knowledge and due to misunderstanding in the short forms
given in the online application form, the petitioner
3 wp6696-2016
could not click the option meant for the candidate
claiming reservation for the ward of ex-serviceman.
She, therefore, prays that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 may
be directed to consider the petitioner for admission to
the Undergraduate Health Science courses against the
seats reserved for the children of Ex-Defence personnel.
5. The learned A.G.P. filed reply on behalf of the
respondents and strongly opposed the petition. She
pointed out the Information Brochure published by
respondent No. 3 for information of the candidates
filling up online application forms for MHT-CET 2016.
It was specifically mentioned in clause-8 of Annexure-E
of the said brochure that the candidate must claim
reservation while applying online. All representations
not claiming the reservation in the online application
form and requesting to accept the claim of reservation
afterwards, will be rejected. In clause-9 (a) of
Annexure-E, there is specific mention of "DEF-1" which
means ward/spouse of an Ex-Defence Service personnel,
domiciled in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner
did not mark against "DEF-1" in his online application
form. The learned A.G.P. submits that since the
4 wp6696-2016
petitioner did not claim reservation against "DEF-1" in
his online application form, his subsequent claim for
reservation in that category cannot be considered and
accordingly, has not been considered. She, therefore,
prays that the writ petition may be dismissed.
6. Undisputedly, respondent No. 3 had published
Information Brochure well in advance prior to the last
date for submitting online application form for MHT-CET
2016. There is no dispute that in Annexure-E of the
said Information Brochure, specific instructions have
been given as to the manner in which the candidates
should claim reservation against the seats meant for the
wards of Ex-Defence Service personnel. In clause-8 of
that Annexure, it was specifically mentioned that the
candidate must claim reservation while applying online
and all the representations not claiming the reservation
in the online application form and requesting to accept
the claim of reservation afterwards, would be rejected.
The petitioner was supposed to follow these instructions
scrupulously when he was made aware about the serious
consequences of not following the same. The petitioner
did not follow the said instructions and did not claim
5 wp6696-2016
reservation while applying online against the seats
meant for the wards of Ex-Defence personnel. If that be
so, he cannot claim reservation subsequently as
contained in clause-8 of the information brochure,
referred to above.
7. In the above circumstances, we are not inclined
to grant any relief in favour of the petitioner. The
petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the
following order.
(i) The writ petition is dismissed.
(ii) Rule stands discharged accordingly.
(iii) No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL] [S.S. SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
npj/wp6696-2016
