Pralhad Uttamrao Patil v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6048 OF 2016 (Ashnar Shaikh Eshaq and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another) AND WRIT PETITION NO. 6323 OF 2016 (Pralhad Uttamrao Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another) ---- Mr. Subodh P. Shah, Advocate for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6048/2016 Mr. Vinod Prakash Patil, Advocate for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6323/2016 Mr. S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for the respondents in both writ petitions ---- CORAM :
S.S. SHINDE AND SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 20th JUNE, 2016 PER COURT :
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.P. for the respondents/State. 2.
It is common contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in both writ petitions that the admissions for the Medical and Dental courses were supposed to be dependent upon the merit in the NEET-I (i.e. National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test - I), as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its
order dated 28th April, 2016 in the case Sankalp Charitable Trust and another Vs. Union of India and others (Writ Petition (C) No. 261 of 2016). It is further submitted that in view of the said observation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the students like the present petitioners, who were expected to appear for the MHT-CET-2016 could not prepare themselves properly and attempts were halfhearted and therefore, the respondents may be directed to conduct the MHT-CET afresh. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Medical & Dental College and another Vs. Union of India and others (Interlocutory Application No. 2 in Transfer Case (C) No.
7 of 2013 and group of other petitions, considered the prayer of the students for conducting NEET-II on the ground that the students who have either applied for NEET-I but could not appear or who appeared but could not prepare fully, thinking that the preparation was to be only for 15% All India seats and there will be further opportunity to appear in other examinations.
subject to seeking an option from the said candidates to give up their candidature for NEET-I. It is submitted that though the students appeared for NEET-I, by the said order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the students to appear for NEET-II. Therefore, by adopting the said course, the respondents may be directed to conduct the MHT-CET - II afresh.
3.
The learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submits that the results of MHT-CET-2016 are already declared. The petitioners had appeared for the said examination and after declaration of the results thereof, they have filed these writ petitions. It is submitted that the students who have already appeared for the said examination, the admission process is already set in motion. The students are to start registration from 2nd July, 2016, counselling is also in process and from 2nd July, 2016, there will be displaying of colleges which are to be allotted to the students. In such situation, it would not be appropriate to direct the respondents to conduct the MHT-CET-II.
4.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.P. It is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India ordered to conduct the NEET-II. However, it appears that the results of NEET-I are not yet declared and the results of both NEET-I and NEET-II will be declared at one and the same time. In the facts of the present case, as rightly submitted by the learned A.G.P., the students have already appeared for the MHT-CET-2016, the results thereof are already declared and issuing any direction to the respondents to conduct the MHT-CET-II would affect upon the students who have already appeared and who are participating in the admission process. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain these writ petitions. Hence, both the writ petitions stand rejected. [SANGITRAO S. PATIL] [S.S. SHINDE] JUDGE JUDGE npj/wp6048-6323-2016