Disposed

Payal Ramchandra Sharma v. the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC6 Oct 2016WP/2549/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench disposed of a writ petition regarding denial of student admission. Court directed the college to consider the petitioner's claim for admission to vacant B-Pharma seats based on eligibility criteria.

What did the court decide?

Directing Respondent No.3 to consider petitioner's claim for admission to vacant B-Pharma seats if she fulfills eligibility criteria.

Payal Ramchandra Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2016)

WPL.2531/2016(905)

mnm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2531 OF 2016

¶6

Ms. Payal R. Sharma ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Shehzad Naqvi a/w. Mr. S.S. Dhuri, Advocates for the Petitioner Mr. Rui A. Rodgregues a/w. Ms. Y.R. Singh, Advocates for Respondent No.3 Ms. Kavita Solunke, AGP for the State Respondent Nos. 1 & 2

¶8

CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR &

¶9

M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED :6^TH OCTOBER, 2016

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Matter is not on board. In view of the urgency taken on board and heard.

¶12

Parties through their Counsel. The grievance of the

¶13

Petitioner is that though as far as the notification Exhibit-B

¶14

the Petitioner had reported for Counselling for admission on

¶15

14th August, 2016 before the Respondent No.3 College, but

¶16

the College did not permit the Petitioner to take part in the

¶17

WPL.2531/2016(905)

¶18

¶19

Counselling on the ground that though the seats are vacant they have not received any notice or intimation from the Respondent No.2 Directorate of Technical Education (DTE). Hence the Petitioner cannot apply for the vacant seats for the purpose of securing admission.

¶20

2. It is the case of the Petitioner that for no fault of her she

¶21

has been deprived of her admission not only on that date but as on today also the seats are vacant.

¶22

On instructions learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that after the Counselling which was conducted on 14th August, 2016 with respect of earlier round as per DTE notice dated 18th August, 2016 still there are seats remaining vacant in B-Pharma and in view of the fact that the Petitioner had reported on 14th August, 2016 as per the advertisement Exhibit-B t he Petitioner can be accommodated in the College, if she fulfills other requisite qualifications (eligibility criteria) etc.

¶23

WPL.2531/2016(905)

¶24

¶25

In view of the aforesaid statement made on instructions

¶26

by the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and as agreed by the learned Counsel for the parties we are of the view that the Petition deserves to be disposed of by directing the Respondent No.3 to consider the Petitioner’s claim for admission as per her eligibility and if she is fulfilling the criteria to grant her admission for vacant seats of B- Pharma.

¶27

The Petition stands disposed of. Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order.

¶28

(M.S. KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)

Payal Ramchandra Sharma v. the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Payal Ramchandra Sharma v. the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Dattatray Vertak Vs the New India Assurancer Co. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Smt Thamabai Ganpat Patil Shikshan Sanstha Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri. Shriram Namdev Shejwal and Ors. Vs Vitthal Ganpat Shejwal and Ors.

Shaikh Saniya Mohammed Sadique Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Dnyaneshwar Rajaram Vitole and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Deepa Veer Ganjoo and Ors. Vs the Registrar, Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Ors.