SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner student who is OBC has filed this petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and prayed that the respondents be directed to give admission to the petitioner in B. E. Part II in Faculty of Engineering and also prayed that the circular regarding admission at Annex. 4 be quashed. It is also prayed that Annexs. 7 and 7a dated 8. 9. 99 and 18. 9. 99 respec-tively-waiting lists of the Diploma passed candidates called for interview on 17. 9. 99 and 21. 9. 99 respectively be quashed.
(2.) LEARNED counsel Mr. Bissa for the petitioner student submitted that when the State Govt. issued circular on 6. 5. 99 (Annex. 3) providing reservation to OBC also then the respondent University ought to have amended its admission circular Annex. 4 which was issued earlier in point of time whereby the last date for submission of the forms for admission to the various B. E. courses was 31. 7. 99. As against this, learned counsel Mr. Bhandari for the respondent University submitted that before issuing admission circular, a meeting of the Board was held on 28. 4. 99 wherein the resolution was passed for giving admission to B. E. Part II Courses and accordingly, the circular at Annex. 4 was issued. It was only thereafter that the State Govt. issued the circular dated 6. 5. 99 providing reservation to OBC also but the same cannot apply retroactively by the University when the University had already issued the circular and invited forms for giving admission to B. E. Part II courses. It is true that the State Govet. has issued circular dated 6. 5. 1999 (Annex. 3) providing reservation to OBC also but the said circular cannot apply retrospectively to the University when the University had already issued its admission circulars for admission to B. E. Part II courses much earlier. It is clearly stated in the reply affidavit by the University that all the seats have been filled up as per the admission circular at Annex. 4 issued by the University and no vacant seat was left, therefore, no question of giving admission to the petitioner arises in B. E. Part II Course. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the admission circulars at Annex. 4 is in any way bad and illegal and, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. In my considered opinion, the Court had no jurisdiction to direct the University to amend its earlier circular in view of the subsequent circular issued by the State Government and make provision for giving admission to the OBC also by directing the University to amend its circular at Annex. 4 because it will upset the entire admission process which may vitally affect number of students which will not be in the interest of justice.
(3.) IN view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance or merits in this petition and accordingly, it fails and is hereby dismissed. Stay petition is also dismissed. .;