Dismissed

Harshal Mahavir Badjate v. the Union of India New Delhi and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Jan 2012WP/2957/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought admission to a DNB course at Kamalnayan Bajaj Hospital. The petitioner was selected but granted a communication stating he joined after the cutoff date. The High Court held that the petitioner was not inclined to issue directions as academic admissions are now centralized and refused interference under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The High Court refused to issue directions for the petitioner's admission to the DNB course and dismissed the writ petition.

Harshal Mahavir Badjate Vs the Union of India New… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 W.P. No.2957 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Writ Petition No.2957 of 2011

¶4

Dr. Harshal s/o Mahavir Badjate.

¶5

.. Petitioner.

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Union of India and Others. .. Respondents.

¶8

Shri. Chaitanya V Dharurkar, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for respondent No.1.

¶9

Shri. N.S. Choudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶10

Shri. L.D. Vakil, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶11

CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE 23^rd JANUARY 2012

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

Heard.

¶14

The petitioner contends that he was

¶15

interviewed for admission to DNB course by respondent No.3 - Kamalnayan Bajaj Hospital under advertisement

¶16

issued by respondent No.3-Hospital on 14-9-2010. The petitioner was selected but under a undated

¶17

2 W.P. No.2957 of 2011

¶18

communication, Exhibit A to the petition, issued by the National Board of Examinations addressed to respondent No.3-Hospital the admission of the petitioner was not continued stating therein that the petitioner joined after the cut off date i.e. 15-9-2010 for July 2010 Session.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has placed a photocopy of letter of Undertaking issued by the petitioner in favour respondent No.3-Hospital along with letter of renewal of accreditation issued by the authority concerned.

¶20

The learned counsel for respondent No.3Hospital submits that now admission for DNB course is centralized one and the respondent No.3-Hospital is not entitled to hold interview and admit candidates directly.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that suitable directions be issued to the respondent No.3Hospital for admitting the petitioner to DNB course as he could not continue the course in spite of spending three months, during the course.

¶22

3 W.P. No.2957 of 2011

¶23

In the facts of the case were not inclined to

¶24

issue any such directions to the respondents. Even other wise now the admission, according to the counsel, is centralized. No interference is warranted in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed.

¶25

Sd/- Sd/- (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.)

¶26

rsl

Harshal Mahavir Badjate v. the Union of India New Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harshal Mahavir Badjate v. the Union of India New Delhi 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

Shankar Bhagwan Ambhore Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Mahesh Prakash Somwanshi Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Satish Ramchandra Salunke Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Prashant Subhash Desarda Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Bhaichand Hirachand Raisone Sahakari Multi State Co-Op Credit Soc. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Hiraji Shrawan Borse High School and Jr.College, Kapdne through Its Headmaster and Anr. Vs the State of Mah. and Anr.