JAY PRAMOD RIKAME Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is an Affidavit in Reply and an Affidavit in Rejoinder. Yesterday, we heard the matter fully at the stage of admission.

(2.) There are 154 Petitioners. The array of parties shows 157, but some names have been repeated.

(3.) The grievance of the Petitioners relates to a re-examination done by the 4th Respondent, the Common Entrance Test Cell ("CET Cell') of the Maharashtra State. The present Common Entrance Test ("CET') was for admission to the first year of the full-time post-graduate MBA/MMS courses for the academic year 2023"2024. In summary, the case of the Petitioners is that when this test was conducted, in some of the slots or batches, there were found to be technical problems. Further, some of the candidates at the CET examination were found to have got 30 additional minutes. Accordingly, the 4th Respondent announced a re-examination. For those who had got additional time, the re-examination was mandatory. Those who said they had suffered technical impediments had the option of appearing for the re-examination. The Petitioners are amongst those who appeared for the re-examination. As we shall see, there were very many others who also did that re-examination but who have not come to Court. Altogether nearly 1,20,000 students appeared for the initial examination and over 11,000 did the re-examination. After the results were declared, the Petitioners have come to Court saying that the conduct of the re-examination for only a few has put them at a disadvantage and has prejudiced them. Some of the Petitioners had in fact earlier filed a Writ Petition saying there were issues with the first test. That Petition was disposed of as infructuous once the Court was informed that a re-examination was being proposed. Even on this there is a controversy today.