IMPORTANT POINT
A review application cannot introduce new grounds not argued in the original hearing, and the petitioner did not qualify for the claimed relaxation under the applicable regulations.

JUDGMENT :

JITENDRA JAIN, J.

1. This review application is filed by Applicant/Petitioner seeking review of our order dated 15th April 2024, whereby this Court had dismissed the writ petition filed by the Applicant/Petitioner, who was denied admission to Ph.D. course conducted by Respondent Nos. 2 to 4-College.

2. The learned counsel for the Review Applicant/Petitioner-Mr. Abhijit V. Jangale submitted that in paragraph 11 of the impugned order, it is observed that even if Petitioner’s score in CIS exam held is to be considered then his percentage would improve marginally from 49 to 51.6% which is less than 55% required for pursuing the Ph.D. course, and therefore, even on this count, the attempt of the Petitioner becomes infructuous. The learned counsel submitted that the Applicant/Petitioner had made an application to Respondent No. 2- Collage under the category Nomadic Tribes (NT). He submitted that cut off percentage for the Ph.D. course is 55% unless a candidate is from a reserve category in which case relaxation of 5% is given and since the Applicant/Petitioner falls under Other Backward Class (O.B.C.) the findings made in paragraph 11 is erroneous. The learned Counsel relied upon Circular No. 152 of 2024 dated 9th July 2024 for Ph.D. course issued by Savitribai Phule Pune University and submitted that the relaxation of 5% is required to be given to the Applicant/Petitioner also. The learned counsel further submitted that as per UGC regulation, the entrance exam for Ph.D. course should consist of 60 marks, whereas Respondent No. 2-College is conducting exam for only 50 marks which is contrary to the said UGC regulation and, therefore, even on this ground seeks review of the impugned order.

3. The learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 has vehemently opposed the review application on the ground that the Petitioner is seeking to urge new grounds which were not argued at the time of the hearing and, therefore, the review petition is required to be dismissed.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the Review Applicant/Petitioner and the Respondents and have perused the documents brought to our notice at the time of hearing.

5. At the outset, the review application is filed and argued by new counsel Mr. Abhijit Jangale, whereas main matter was argued by Mr. Mrunal Surana, Advocate for the Petitioner on 15th April 2024. In our view, the counsel who is arguing the Review Applicant/Petitioner is not the counsel who argued the main matter and, therefore, it would not be proper for the Applicant/Petitioner to engage new counsel and seek review of the order on the ground urged before us. In this connection, it is apt to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr. (1997) 9 SCC 736, where the Supreme Court has deprecated such a practice of new counsel filing and arguing the review petition and taking new grounds which were never argued at the time of hearing of main matter. Similar view is echoed by this Court in the cases of Bhupendra R. Gupta & Anr. Vs. Sakhubai S. Ghatal & Ors. 2018 SCC Online Bom 9298, Shobha Bajirao Damodar Vs. Triratna Krida and Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Akola & Ors. 2009 (1) Mh. L.J. 979 and Shree Vaishnav Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. R.P. No. 31 of 2024 in W.P. No. 16145 of 2023 dated 6th March 2024.

6. Admittedly, the arguments now canvassed before us were not the arguments made by the Applicant/Petitioner at the time of arguing the main matter, nor it is the case of the Applicant/Petitioner that it was argued and not considered. The Circular No. 152 of 2024 dated 9th July 2024 is the circular issued by Savitribai Phule Pune University for the academic year 2024-25 for admission to the Ph.D. program. In our view, the said Circular would not be applicable to the case of the Applicant/Petitioner since we are concerned with regulation of Respondent No. 2-Deccan College which is deemed University and that too for the ac