Sandip Vasudeo Bhortake v. State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Dept Of Higher And Technical Education And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL WRIT PETITION NO.11617 OF 2025 VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2025.09.04 20:14:43 +0530 Sandip V Bhortake

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Maharashtra & anr.

...Respondent

Mr. M.V.Thorat i/b Ms.Pooja V.Thorat a/w. Mr. Amar Bodke and Mr. Devesh Suralkar for the Petitioner.

Mr. B.V.Samant, Addl.G.P a/w Ms.Pooja Joshi Deshpande, AGP for Respondent no.1-State.

Mr. Sameer Khedekar for Respondent no.2.

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 4 th SEPTEMBER, 2025 P.C. :

1.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

By this petition, the petitioner essentially prays for second part of prayer clause 'a' i.e. a direction to respondent no.2 to select 1/3

student to "Supernumerary Seats" strictly in accordance with rules appearing in the information Brochure of respondent no.2 in respect of Engineering Degree Course.

3.

The grievance of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that without exhausting the merit list vis-a-vis i.e. Supernumerary quota i.e. Gulf quota, respondent no.2, has given allotment letter out of turn to some other candidates. He submits that although the petitioner is at Sr. No.79 of COEP College Pune, allotment letter was not given to the petitioner, but, an allotment letter was given to a candidate at Sr.No.100. He submits that respondent no.2 without exhausting the merit list, has not only given an allotment letter to a candidate out of turn but has also without exhausting the list, transferring the seat to NRI Quota, which is not permissible.

4.

Mr.Samant, Addl.G.P. on instructions from respondent no.2 states that no admission will be processed out of turn and without 2/3

exhausting the merit list vis-a-vis Supernumerary quota, and that the said quota will not be transferred to NRI seats, without exhausting the said list. He further submits that however, candidate will have to make necessary payment as soon as allotment letter is issued to the candidate.

5.

In view of the statement made above by the learned Addl.G.P. on instructions, nothing survives for further consideration in this petition. The petition stands disposed off accordingly. 6.

We make it clear that the other reliefs sought by the petitioner were not considered by this Court, as the petitioner had restricted his prayer only to second part of prayer clause 'a'. 7.

All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.) 3/3