Dismissed

Ravindra Chintaman Sonawane v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Oct 2008WP/5746/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a seat reservation change in J.B.I.M.S. admissions from N.T.(D) to N.T.(C). Court held interference futile as admissions completed and petitioner ineligible due to lower merit, but directed universities to notify seat reservations by early July to avoid confusion.

What did the court decide?

Noted grievance; directed authorities to notify seat reservations early to avoid confusion.

Ravindra Chintaman Sonawane Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5746 OF 2008

¶5

DIST.: PUNE

¶6

Ravindra Chintaman Sonawane ...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶9

...Respondents.

¶10

Mr. M.S. Karnik for the Petitioner

¶11

Mr. P.M. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondents No. 1 and 2

¶12

Mr. P.V. Phadnis for Respondent No. 3

¶13

Mr. S.G. Kudle for Respondent No. 4.

¶14

CORAM : B ILAL NAZKI and J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 13, 2008

¶15

P.C. :-

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. Counter has been filed.

¶17

The grievance of the petitioner is that he was a candidate for admission to M.M.S. in Jamnalal Bajaj Institute of Management Studies, Mumbai. He belongs to N.T.(D) Category, and for candidates other

¶18

¶19

than in the Bombay University, out of 9 seats, one seat was reserved for N.T.(D) by the communication notified by the University on 3^rd July, 2008. Thereafter, on 7^th July, 2008, this reservation of one seat was changed from N.T.(D) to N.T.(C).

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is settled law that rules of the game cannot be changed mid-way, and after the seats were allocated to different categories, the reservation of one seat could not be changed from N.T.(D) to N.T.(C). The learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that N.T.(C). was entitled to overall reservation of 3.5%, whereas N.T.(D) was entitled to a reservation of 2%; but continuously, for the last two academic years, one seat had been reserved for N.T.(D) out of 9 seats, but no seat was reserved for N.T. (C). Therefore, on representation by a candidate, who was ultimately selected, the decision was made to shift the seat from N.T.(D) to N.T. (C).

¶21

Whether this could be done or not is, at present, academic because of two reasons. Firstly, the admissions have already been completed in the month of July, 2008, and the first semester

¶22

¶23

examination is going to be held in November, 2008. If we set aside the admission of respondent No. 4, even then, the petitioner, at this stage, would not be able to get admission to the institute. Therefore, only a seat would get wasted. Secondly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that even if the reservation had not been changed from N.T.(D) to N.T.(C), then the petitioner would not have been able to get the admission, as, according to the merit list of N.T.(D) candidates, the petitioner secured 161 marks, whereas two persons above him from the same category had obtained marks higher than him. One of them was from Mumbai University, and was not entitled to admission under the present quota, whereas No.2 in the merit list had secured 164 marks. He opted for Jamnalal Bajaj Institute of Management Studies, but could not get the admission. Had the reservation been not changed, then the candidate at serial No.2 in the merit list would have obviously got it.

¶24

For these reasons, we do not want to interfere at this stage in the admission. However, we direct the respondents to ensure that the reservations of number of seats to a particular category are notified at the time when the first advertisement calling applications is issued by

¶25

¶26

the University or latest by the first week of July every year. This would avoid confusion, and if anybody has any grievance with regard to the reservation under a particular category, he will have sufficient time to agitate his grievance.

¶27

6. With these observations, the petition is dismissed.

¶28

BILAL NAZKI, J.

¶29

J.H. BHATIA, J.

Ravindra Chintaman Sonawane v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Chintaman Sonawane v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

School Board of Municipal Corporation of the City of Malegaon and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhimrao Harku Wadile Vs the State of Maharasthra and Othes

Dr. Gangadhar v. Kayande- Patil Vs the Dy. Secretary - Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Ors.

Suneeta G. Mhatre Vs the Commissioner (Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation) and Ors.

Premchand Sukhlal Bora Vs Standard Chartered Bank and Ors.

Abhijit Ashok More Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.