WP/9140/2020 of PALLAVI UKHAJEE GADHAVE Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS on 31 December 2020

Arguments

1. The petitioner, a special person (physically challenged girl), is before this Court with the following prayer clauses :- “B.By issuing writ of mandamus or any other writ ororder or directions in the like nature, the respondentno.3 may kindly be directed to grant an admission tothe petitioner as per the 2[nd] CAP round of M.B.B.S.Medical Course for the academic year 2020-21 and forthat purpose issue necessary orders.order or directions in the like nature, the respondentno.3 may kindly be directed to grant an admission tothe petitioner as per the 2[nd] CAP round of M.B.B.S.Medical Course for the academic year 2020-21 and forthat purpose issue necessary orders.C.By issuing writ of certiorari or any other writ or orderor directions in the like nature, the admission of theor directions in the like nature, the admission of the petitioner which is cancelled by the respondent no.4may kindly be quashed and set aside thereby directingto restore the admission of the petitioner for theM.B.B.S. Medical Course for the academic year 2020-21 as per the 1[st] CAP round and for that purpose issuenecessary orders.

D.By issuing writ of mandamus or any other writ ororder or directions in the like nature, the respondentno.2 may kindly be directed to include the name ofthe petitioner for next CAP round of M.B.B.S. MedicalCourse for the academic year 2020-21 and for thatpurpose issue necessary orders.”

2. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are formal parties since thepetitioner had earlier secured admission to the M.B.B.S. course withrespondent No.4/ Government Medical College & Hospital, Jalgaon in thefirst “Centralized Admission Process” (CAP) round and subsequently, withrespondent No.3/ Tilak Medical College and Hospital, Mumbai in thesecond CAP round.

3. Shri Narwadkar, learned advocate, appears on behalf ofrespondent No.2 and the learned AGP appears on behalf of respondentNo.1.

4. This petition throws up peculiar facts before us. The petitioner secured admission to the M.B.B.S. course from the physicallyhandicapped quota with respondent No.4 College at Jalgaon in the firstCAP round. She reported to respondent No.4 College and paid the feesand thus, her admission was secured. However, subsequently when sherealized that she has succeeded in securing admission in the second CAP

*3*929wp9140o20

round with respondent No.3 College at Mumbai, she gave up heradmission with respondent No.4 College at Jalgaon and after collecting alloriginal documents, proceeded to approach respondent No.3 at Mumbai.However, at that time, she failed in tendering her retention form,inasmuch as, she did not report to respondent No.3 College within thetime frame so as to maintain her admission with the said college.Consequentially, going by the Rules as pointed out by Shri Narwadkar, thepetitioner lost her admission even with respondent No.3 College atMumbai.

5. We find from the above facts that this is an unfortunatepeculiar case wherein, a physically challenged girl student, though havingsecured admission on merit in two Government Medical Colleges, has losther admission in both these colleges only because of lack of properinstructions in filling up the retention form and reporting at respondentNo.3 College within the time prescribed, with the original documents.

We find from the above facts that this is an unfortunate

6. We called upon Shri Narwadkar to take instructions as towhether, the petitioner can be considered for admission in the secondmop-up round likely to be commenced on 01.01.2021 and would last upto 07.01.2021. These details are found on the website of respondent No.2and therefore, the petitioner, upon viewing the website, would becomeaware of such mop-up II round.

7. Shri Narwadkar, upon instructions, submits that respondent No.2 cannot make a statement of guaranteeing admission to the petitionerconsidering the NEET UG Rules, 2020 vide which, the petitioner nowcannot be considered for admission. He, however, fairly submits that thereis possibility that the remaining candidates, who would be considered inmop-up-II round might have scored less marks than the petitioner.

8. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits, oninstructions taken from the petitioner, that in the event of any seatavailable in the physically handicapped category, she may be consideredfrom the said category and in the event, there being no such seat availablefor the physically handicapped student, she is willing to compete from theopen category based upon the marks secured by her.

The learned advocate for the petitioner submits, on

9. In these circumstances, we find it appropriate to direct that the petitioner may be considered for the mop-up II round based on hermarks scored in the concerned examination and would have the liberty ofbeing considered from the physically handicapped category if such a seatis available from such category. If no such seat is available, she can beconsidered from the general category.

10. With the above directions, we expect respondent No.2 topermit the petitioner to participate in the mop-up II round. This WritPetition is, accordingly, disposed off.

With the above directions, we expect respondent No.2 to

11. Since we have dealt with a peculiar case of a physicallychallenged girl student, who has been in the merit list in the light of 929wp9140o20

having secured admission in the Government Medical Colleges at Jalgaonas well as at Mumbai, that this case shall not be cited as a precedent.

kps(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)