Important Point - Colleges including respondent nos. 6 and 7 have committed gross irregularities while giving admissions.

PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred the aforesaid petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the counsel for both the respective parties, matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

3. The petitioner had sought issuance of Writ or Order in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take fresh admission/readmission in accordance with law and rules. It was also prayed that the respondents be directed to submit the necessary report of compliance of rules/regulations and an undertaking to follow rules and law and giving admission to meritorious students on the basis of merit without any discrimination whatsoever. It was further prayed that, the petitioner be directed to be admitted after considering her merit over the other students who have scored lower marks and to inquire into the entire issue of admission and violation of law and rules by the colleges and take necessary action against the institution found to be in violation of law. The petitioner also prayed that adequate compensation be directed to be provided by the respective colleges for damaging the academic career of the petitioner and the mental agony and stress caused to her.

4. The relevant facts as contended by the petitioner and the factual aspects which are necessary for adjudication of the issues involved in the petition and the application are as follows:

(a) The petitioner belongs to minority community and the caste of OBC.

(b) The respondent no. 3 is in-charge of the functioning of institution of Health Science and is the registered University. The respondent no. 4 is the Association of Management of Unaided Private Medical College which accepts application forms with preference for admission on behalf of unaided medical colleges. The respondent no. 5 is the Apex Body which is in-charge of the entire system of education and medical profession. The respondent No. 2 controls and gives schedule of admission process and is also in-charge of handling complaints against the colleges. The respondent nos. 6 and 7 are Medical Institutions which are members of respondent no. 4.

(c) The petitioner is a meritorious student having secured 143/200 marks in the Common Entrance Exam conducted by respondent no. 4. The petitioner's name was listed on merit list no. 4600 as per the certificate issued by competent authority of respondent no. 4. The petitioner had applied for admission in various medical colleges including respondent nos. 6 and 7.

(d) Vide Circular No. PNS (MED)/Admission-2012/ UG/Schedul/3529, the respondent no. 2 issue a schedule of admission process for 1st Year Health Science Course. As per the circular, the schedule was to be followed strictly. The respondent nos. 6 and 7 ignored the circular and changed the schedule without giving proper notice to the students. The action of respondent nos. 6 and 7 resulted in denial of admission to the petitioner.

(e) The petitioner submitted the application for admission with respondent nos. 4, 6 and 7 in accordance with rules and regulations. However, non-meritorious students securing lesser marks were granted admission and the petitioner was denied the admission. The denial of admission has damaged her career and right to profess medical profession. The act of respondents caused great mental agony, stress and torture not only to the petitioner but also to her family.

(f) After display of second merit list, the vacancy was declared on 14th September 2011. Unfortunately, 15th 16th, 19th and 20th of September were either declared as Band or holidays. The petitioner was left with two days to apply for admission in various colleges across Maharashtra and it was practically impossible to remain physically present with provisional documents for the purpose of admission.

(g) The petitioner thereafter filed a complaint dated 6th November 2012, with respondent no. 2. In the said complaint it was stated that she h