Dismissed

Kum. Aishwarya a. Ghonge v. the Directorate, Medical Education and Research, Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Jul 2014WP/6271/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order denying medical admission benefits on the grounds of caste. The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that reservations must be claimed in the original application and found the petitioner's belated claim inexcusable.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Kum. Aishwarya a. Ghonge Vs the Directorate, Medical… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp6271.14

¶2

krs

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.6271 OF 2014

¶6

Kum. Aishwarya A. Ghonge : Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The Directorate, Medical Education & Research, Mumbai & Ors. : Respondents

¶9

Mr.Samir A. Vaidya i/b. Mr.Prakash Mahadik for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr.P.G.Sawant, `B' Panel Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the Respondents.

¶11

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA & A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶12

DATE : JULY 28, 2014.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the

¶15

Petitioner is seeking a direction to set aside the communication dated 10.06.2014 of Respondent no.1 denying her the benefit of admission on the basis of her caste claim.

¶16

Desirous of pursuing medical studies, the Petitioner filed an on-line application form in March 2014 to appear for MH-CET-2014 examination and

1 of 4

wp6271.14

krs

accordingly sat for the examination. It is an admitted position that the Petitioner had not claimed the benefit on the basis of her caste and had applied under open category at the time of filling up her on-line application form.

¶21

Rule 6.4 of the Information Brochure for MH-CET-2014 is relevant for

¶22

the purposes of the present Petition. It reads as under:

¶23

“6.4 The candidates desirous of claiming the constitutional and/or specified reservations must have claimed the same in the original online application form of MH-CET 2014, failing which the claim will not be entertained subsequently. A candidate belonging to backward class from Maharashtra state only, is eligible for claiming seat under reserved category.”

¶24

Thus, rule 6.4 makes it abundantly clear that unless the candidate has claimed reservation in the original application form, the claim of reservation will not be entertained subsequently.

¶25

An identical issue had come up for consideration before the Division

¶26

Bench of this Court in Vinita Tanajirao Dhasal v. The Competent Authority/Director, Directorate of Medical Education and Research & Anr . (Writ Petition (L) No.2092 of 2012), wherein the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 23.08.2012 held as under:

¶27

“But the fundamental objection is that the Petitioner while filling up the application form did not claim OBC status,

2 of 4

wp6271.14

krs

but specifically claimed admission as an open category candidate. In view of the clear provisions in paragraphs 5.6 and 6.5 of the Admissions Brochure, the claim of the Petitioner cannot now be entertained as an OBC candidate. The instructions to candidates were clear and understandable. …...”

¶32

This view has been reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in

¶33

Rutuja Rajendra Wankhade v. State of Maharashtra and another (Writ Petition No.6328 of 2012).

¶34

The judgment of the Supreme Court in Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE [(2005) 9 SCC 779] cited on behalf of the Petitioner was a case of an error committed by the certificate issuing authority. That judgment is of no assistance in the facts of the present case. The judgment cited on behalf of the Petitioner in Arbaz Khan Karim Khan v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee & Ors. of the Aurangabad Bench (Writ Petition no.5381 of 2013) would have also no application to the facts of the present case.

¶35

Moreover, it is noticed that in the instant case, after having chosen to apply under the open category, it is only after the declaration of results and the publication of merit list, that the Petitioner has belatedly applied and obtained her Caste Certificate. We are also informed that the Petitioner has secured admission in MIMER MC, Talegaon, Pune.

3 of 4

wp6271.14

krs

In the light of the above, we are not inclined to exercise our

¶40

extraordinary writ jurisdiction to entertain the Petition. The Petition shall accordingly stand dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶41

4 of 4

Kum. Aishwarya a. Ghonge v. the Directorate, Medical Education and Research, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kum. Aishwarya a. Ghonge v. the Directorate, Medical Education and Research, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Balasaheb Ram Ghodake Vs the Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Anr.

Shri. Balasaheb Ram Ghodake Vs the Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Anr.

High Court Bar Association, Nagpur through Its Secretary Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors.

Akash Laxman Sakat, through Laxman Kisan Sakat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kaushik Jayant Gijare, through Jayant Vishwanath Gijare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sachin Babasaheb Kale and Ors. Vs Directorate of Technical Education, Maharashtra State and Ors.