VIDARBHA YOUTH WELFARE SOCIETY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Looking to the nature of controversy and developments after orders of this Court dated 19th August, 2016 in both these matters, as requested by parties, we have heard the matters finally by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. Learned Adv. Mr. Sudame with Adv. Mr. Bhuibhar has argued the matters on behalf of the petitioners. Learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader Mr. N.R. Rode represented the State Govt.

(2.) Learned Adv. Mr. Sudame has submitted that filling in the quota at institute level for the purposes of admissions to various Engineering Courses, the Principals/Directors of respective colleges are the final authority and they have to draw the list of students selected for admission. In this case, as, after completion of Centralised Admission Process [CAP] rounds, the separate final merit list was not displayed till 8th August, 2016, Writ Petition No. 4734 of 2016 was required to be filed by petitioners and this Court then noted submission of counsel appearing for competent authority that only students registered with Common Entrance Test [CET] Cell are entitled to seek admission. It was further stated that competent authority had again opened that process of registration of students with CET Cell for that day, i.e., for 12th August, 2016. The students getting themselves registered could be then admitted in terms of Rule 3 (2) (b) of the Admission Rules. He contends that no such list was made available. Petitioners are entitled to admit twenty per cent of the strength as institute quota and similarly seats remaining vacant after CAP could have been also filled in at institute level. Thus, admissions were made by last date, i.e., 14th August, 2016; but the lists were not getting uploaded and hence a representation was sent to competent authority. Joint Director of Technical Education [respondent no.3] on 13th August, 2016 sent impugned communication, stating that candidates, who did not satisfy prescribed eligibility norms, cannot be admitted.

(3.) Learned counsel submits that these respondents did not fulfil their obligation of making a merit list of students eligible for admission to petitioners institutes and found fault with admissions made by the petitioners when the petitioners made admission by adhering to merit only well before the last date.