High Court
Legal Reasoning
(( 5 ))35-WP-10350-2025(A).odtvacancies in the said category during CAP Round-I. There is nodispute regarding the same. Hence, we are of the opinion that nofault can be found with Respondent No. 2 in showing zerovacancy as on 05.08.2025, when CAP Round-II was initiated. 9.It is also an admitted position that during the periodbetween 06.08.2025 and 08.08.2025, when online forms weresubmitted by the candidates who decided to participate in CAPround-II, on 08.08.2025 at 3.34 p.m., one of the three candidateswho had taken admission in CAP round-I in Respondent No.3institution, cancelled his admission. As a consequence, at thatpoint of time, one vacancy arose in the aforementioned category.10.It is in this backdrop, that the note published byRespondent No.2 on 05.08.2025, during initiation of CAP round-IIbecomes significant, which reads as follows:-“IMPORTANT: The vacancy position may vary. Candidatesare advised to select the choice codes irrespective of thevacancy position.”11.The above-quoted note shows that candidates werespecifically advised to select choice codes irrespective of thevacancy position, thereby indicating that the Petitioner could haveparticipated in CAP Round-II, regardless of the vacancy position 5 of 7 (( 6 ))35-WP-10350-2025(A).odtshown in the institutions, including Respondent No.3 institution. Ifthe Petitioner had participated and submitted the online formthrough his login ID between 06.08.2025 and 08.08.2025, thevacancy that arose on 08.08.2025 at 3:34 p.m. would have beenavailable for the Petitioner to claim, based on his performance inthe entrance test. Not having participated in CAP Round-II, thePetitioner cannot now turn around and make a grievance, allegingarbitrariness on the part of Respondent No.2 or violation of thestipulations found in its own information brochure. We aresatisfied with the stand taken by Respondent No.2, primarilybecause the process of admission through various CAP rounds isnecessarily a dynamic process, to which both the institutions andthe participating candidates are expected to adapt. The above-quoted important note correctly advises candidates to participatein CAP rounds so that, if a vacancy arises during this dynamicprocess, as happened in the present case, the concernedparticipating candidates can raise their claim, based on theirperformance in the entrance test.12.We do not find any merit in the contentions raised onbehalf of the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the 6 of 7
Arguments
35-WP-10350-2025(A).odt(This order stands corrected in view of the order passed on 15.09.2025)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD35 WRIT PETITION NO. 10350 OF 2025YASH VIJAY NAIKVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS.…Mr. Yogesh B. Bolkar, Advocate for the Petitioner Ms Neha B. Kamble, AGP for Respondent No.1 – StateMr. M. D. Narwadkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2 Mr. A. R. Bolurkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3 Ms Pratibha Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent No.4 .…CORAM:MANISH PITALE ANDY. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.DATE:08.09.2025PER COURT :-1.Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned AGPfor Respondent No.1 and the learned counsel appearing forRespondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 2.The principal contention raised on behalf of thePetitioner in this petition is that, due to the erroneous applicationof the counseling process by Respondent No.2, the State CommonEntrance Test Cell, the Petitioner has been deprived of a seat inRespondent No.3 institution for the MMS course, and Respondent 1 of 7 (( 2 ))35-WP-10350-2025(A).odtNo.4 has been granted admission despite the fact that thePetitioner admittedly scored more marks than Respondent No.4. 3.The learned counsel for the Petitioner refers to thedocuments on record and submits that, in the first CentralizedAdmission Process (CAP) round, the Petitioner had participatedand had chosen Respondent No.3 institution. However, threecandidates who scored more marks than the Petitioner in the samecategory, i.e., NT(A), secured admission in the three vacanciesavailable in Respondent No.3 institution. 4.The Petitioner continued to be interested in takingadmission to Respondent No.3 institution. Therefore, when CAPRound-II was announced and zero vacancies were shown in therelevant category at the said institution, as per the seat matrix, thePetitioner did not participate in CAP Round-II. In this context,much emphasis is placed on the relevant clause in the informationbrochure issued by Respondent No.2, which states that theavailable seats, i.e., the seat matrix, would be displayed on thewebsite of Respondent No.2 for Rounds II, III, and IV. 5.It is submitted that, since zero vacancy was shown,the Petitioner did not participate in CAP Round-II. However, the 2 of 7 (( 3 ))35-WP-10350-2025(A).odtPetitioner subsequently came to know that Respondent No.4 wasgranted admission against one vacancy in the Respondent No.3institution, despite having secured less marks than the Petitionerin the entrance test from the NT(A) category. It is submitted,therefore, that the acts of Respondent No.2 can be said to bearbitrary and in violation of its own information brochure, givingrise to cause of action for the Petitioner to approach this Court.6.Upon notice being issued, the Respondents appeared,and Respondent No. 2 filed to reply affidavit along withsupporting documents. The learned counsel appearing for thecontesting Respondent No. 2 invited the attention of this Court tothe documents filed with the reply affidavit and placed muchemphasis on an important note put up by Respondent No. 2 at thetime when the subsequent CAP rounds were undertaken. It isemphasized that, as the admission process is dynamic andincludes cancellations during the process itself, vacancies mayarise in participating institutions, to which candidates areexpected to apply. Hence, they were advised to participate in theCAP rounds and fill in their respective choices irrespective of thevacancies available at the time. On this basis, it is submitted that 3 of 7 (( 4 ))35-WP-10350-2025(A).odtthe Petitioner himself failed to participate in CAP Round-II, andsince a vacancy arose on 08.08.2025 at 3:34 p.m., he cannot nowturn around and raise a grievance in the matter. It is alsoemphasized that the Petitioners did participate in CAP Round-IIIfor admission.7.The learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 hassupported the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of RespondentNo.2.8.We have considered the rival submissions in the lightof the documents placed on record. We find that the schedule ofCAP rounds in the present case shows that, in respect of CAPRound-II, the display of the position of vacant seats was to beensured as on 05.08.2025, and the online submission andconfirmation of the e-form for CAP Round-II was to be undertakenbetween 06.08.2025 and 08.08.2025. As per the relevant clauseof the information brochure, Respondent No.2 did display theposition of vacant seats on 05.08.2025. On that date, there wasindeed zero vacancy in Category NT(A) (VJDT), insofar asRespondent No. 3 institution is concerned. This was because threecandidates had already taken admission in the three available 4 of 7
Decision
(( 7 ))35-WP-10350-2025(A).odtpresent case. Hence, we are of the opinion that the present writpetition deserves to be dismissed.13.In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. [ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ MANISH PITALE, J. ]SMS 7 of 7