S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.

1. We had, on 29th July, 2016, pronounced an order dismissing both the petitions.

2. Here are our reasons for the above conclusion.

3. For proper appreciation of the rival contentions, It would be appropriate if we reproduce the prayers in the two Writ Petitions. Writ Petition No.8674 of 2016 seeks the following two reliefs :

“(a) call for the relevant records and proceedings from the office of respondent authorities and after going into legality of the same, hold and declare that question numbers13, 14, 44 and 60 of answer key of Section-A and question numbers 109, 120, 129, 131 and 142 of answer key of Section-B (MEDICINE) and question numbers 105, 122, 134 and 148 of answer key of Section-B (SURGERY) and question number 105 of answer key of Section-B (PEDIATRICS) is incorrect and correct the same as described in Exhibit-G.

(b) direct the Respondent authorities to constitute a fresh expert committee to look into the queries raised at Exhibit-G with a further direction that on obtaining opinion by such committee re-assess the answer key of Section-A and Section-B (MEDICINE), Section-B (SURGERY) and Section-B (PEDIATRICS)”

4. The other writ petition being Writ Petition (L) No. 2010 of 2016 prays for the following reliefs :

“(a) That a writ certiorari or any other writ, order or direction be issued calling for the records and files of the case and after going into the legality and validity of the decision taken by the respondent contained in a notification dated 15th July, 2015 (Exhibit C), quash and set aside the same to the extent it declared question Nos.28, 49, 60 and 93 of Section A of the question paper in the said course i.e. MH-SSET- 2016 as non evaluative.

(b) That a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction be issued ordering and directing the respondent not to give admissions in the said course as per the merits list published, which is at Exhibit B and prepare a fresh merit list by treating the four questions Nos.28, 49, 60 and 93 of Section A of the question paper of MH-SSET-2016 in the said course as evaluative.

(c) That the decision taken by the respondent treating the four questions Nos.28, 29, 60 and 93 of Section A of the question paper in the said course as non-evaluative, vide a notification dated 15th July, 2016 (Exhibit C), be stayed.”

5. It is, therefore, apparent that the petitioners in both petitions are seeking directly opposite reliefs.

6. The brief background in which the two petitions were filed are summarized hereinbelow:

7. Writ Petition No. 8674 of 2016 is filed on 25th July, 2016 by a petitioner who passed his MBBS examination along with one year compulsory internship in the year 2010. He was thereafter admitted in the post graduate degree course in the discipline (MD Medicine) at B.J. Medical College, Pune. He passed this examination in the year 2014. He now claims to be eligible to pursue what is popularly known as a higher or superspeciality course. He states that some of the students placed like him have passed similar examinations and are eligible to pursue super-speciality course studies. These super-speciality courses are available in surgical as well as non-surgical branch. Such of the student who has completed the post graduate medical course from surgical branch is eligible to pursue the super-speciality course in surgical branch and it is styled as M.Ch. Superspeciality course. Likewise, a student who has completed the post graduate medical course from non-surgical branch is eligible to pursue super-speciality course study and known as D.M. Super-speciality course.

8. The petitioner at page 6 of the petition highlights the qualities of the super-speciality course and the examination conducted for entry therein. He submits that these courses can be pursued by meritorious students only. There is no reservation as far as these courses and studies are concerned. They are also free of any other reservations by the State Government. The State of Maharashtra is