TEJASWINI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule in both the petitions. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard both the sides for final disposal.

(2.) The petitioner from the first proceeding had appeared for Asso-CET 2012 for seeking admission in private medical college from Maharashtra State for MBBS course. She secured 153 marks out of 200 marks and she was from open category. She could not get admission in "Common Admission Process" (CAP) round. After CAP round, seats remained vacant in almost all medical colleges running MBBS course. There were vacant seats in the college run by respondent management also. First time in the letter dated 15-9-2012 Pravesh Niyantran Samiti (in short, PNS) gave permission to private colleges to fill vacant seats as per the time schedule given by PNS with the letter. It is the case of the petitioner that the said procedure was not followed by respondent management and before the last date fixed for completion of the process and publishing the list, the respondent management completed its process and published the list on 20-9-2012. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the time schedule prepared by PNS, the dates 22 and 23 September 2012 were fixed for counselling round and only after that the list could have been prepared and further the list ought to have been sent for verification to PNS by respondent management and only after giving of the approval to the list by PNS the respondent management could have given admissions to those students. It is contended that with ulterior motive the said procedure was not followed by respondent management and the petitioner was deprived of her right to get admission in medical course. It is her case that all the students who were admitted in this round had secured less marks in the test than the petitioner.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that she had given application for getting admission in the college of respondent management after CAP round and her name was shown as selected candidate but before 22 and 23 September, 2012 the management collected fees from other students and showed that it had completed the process. The petitioner student has claimed following reliefs in her petition.