Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Divyanshu Ramratan Badole, a student belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, filed a writ petition on 22 July 2015 challenging a specific clause in the Rules of Admission for the first year of Four Years Full Time Degree Courses in Engineering/Technology for the academic year 2015-16. The impugned clause pertained to the Third Round of the Central Admission Process (CAP) and stated that all available seats in that round would be offered only to Maharashtra State candidates who were eligible to participate in CAP Round-III, with no seat tag of reservation. The petitioner argued that this clause was arbitrary and contrary to law, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh v. K.L. Narasimhan (1997) 6 SCC 283. The High Court noted that the brochure containing the admission rules was published on 24 February 2015, and the first two rounds of admission had already concluded by 30 June 2015 and 10 July 2015 respectively. The third round commenced on 20 July 2015. The court held that it was not inclined to disturb the clause after due publication and circulation to the public, finding nothing arbitrary or illegal. The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Admission Law - Challenge to Admission Rules - Delay and Laches - Brochure published on 24/2/2015, petition filed on 22/7/2015 after first two rounds completed - Court declined to interfere as process had already commenced and clause was known to public - Held that challenge at belated stage is not maintainable (Paras 2-4). B) Admission Law - Reservation Policy - Third Round Counseling - Clause restricting seats to Maharashtra State candidates - No seat tag of reservation maintained - Court found nothing arbitrary or illegal in the clause - Held that such rules are within the domain of the State and not open to challenge after due publication (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the clause in the admission brochure restricting third round counseling seats to Maharashtra State candidates is arbitrary and illegal.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Admission rules published in brochure cannot be challenged after process has commenced
- No arbitrariness in restricting third round seats to state candidates
- Courts should not interfere with admission process at belated stage
