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 BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 35 WRIT PETITION NO. 10350 OF 2025 YASH VIJAY NAIK VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS .… Mr. Yogesh B. Bolkar, Advocate for the Petitioner Ms Neha B. Kamble, AGP for Respondent No.1 – State Mr. 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 AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE : 08.09.2025 PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned AGP for Respondent No.1 and the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 2. The principal contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner in this petition is that, due to the erroneous application of the counseling process by Respondent No.2, the State Common Entrance Test Cell, the Petitioner has been deprived of a seat in Respondent No.3 institution for the MMS course, and Respondent 1 of 7 2025:BHC-AUG:24729-DB (( 2 )) 35-WP-10350-2025(A).odt No.4 has been granted admission despite the fact that the Petitioner admittedly scored more marks than Respondent No.4. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner refers to the documents on record and submits that, in the first Centralized Admission Process (CAP) round, the Petitioner had participated and had chosen Respondent No.3 institution. However, three candidates who scored more marks than the Petitioner in the same category, i.e., NT(A), secured admission in the three vacancies available in Respondent No.3 institution. 4. The Petitioner continued to be interested in taking admission to Respondent No.3 institution. Therefore, when CAP Round-II was announced and zero vacancies were shown in the relevant category at the said institution, as per the seat matrix, the Petitioner did not participate in CAP Round-II. In this context, much emphasis is placed on the relevant clause in the information brochure issued by Respondent No.2, which states that the available seats, i.e., the seat matrix, would be displayed on the website 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).odt Petitioner subsequently came to know that Respondent No.4 was granted admission against one vacancy in the Respondent No.3 institution, despite having secured less marks than the Petitioner in the entrance test from the NT(A) category. It is submitted, therefore, that the acts of Respondent No.2 can be said to be arbitrary and in violation of its own information brochure, giving rise 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 with supporting documents. The learned counsel appearing for the contesting Respondent No. 2 invited the attention of this Court to the documents filed with the reply affidavit and placed much emphasis on an important note put up by Respondent No. 2 at the time when the subsequent CAP rounds were undertaken. It is emphasized that, as the admission process is dynamic and includes cancellations during the process itself, vacancies may arise in participating institutions, to which candidates are expected to apply. Hence, they were advised to participate in the CAP rounds and fill in their respective choices irrespective of the vacancies available at the time. On this basis, it is submitted that 3 of 7 (( 4 )) 35-WP-10350-2025(A).odt the Petitioner himself failed to participate in CAP Round-II, and since a vacancy arose on 08.08.2025 at 3:34 p.m., he cannot now turn around and raise a grievance in the matter. It is also emphasized that the Petitioners did participate in CAP Round-III for admission. 7. The learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has supported the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of Respondent No.2. 8. We have considered the rival submissions in the light of the documents placed on record. We find that the schedule of CAP rounds in the present case shows that, in respect of CAP Round-II, the display of the position of vacant seats was to be ensured as on 05.08.2025, and the online submission and confirmation of the e-form for CAP Round-II was to be undertaken between 06.08.2025 and 08.08.2025. As per the relevant clause of the information brochure, Respondent No.2 did display the position of vacant seats on 05.08.2025. On that date, there was indeed zero vacancy in Category NT(A) (VJDT), insofar as Respondent No. 3 institution is concerned. This was because three candidates had already taken admission in the three available 4 of 7 (( 5 )) 35-WP-10350-2025(A).odt vacancies in the said category during CAP Round-I. There is no dispute regarding the same. Hence, we are of the opinion that no fault can be found with Respondent No. 2 in showing zero vacancy as on 05.08.2025, when CAP Round-II was initiated. 9. It is also an admitted position that during the period between 06.08.2025 and 08.08.2025, when online forms were submitted by the candidates who decided to participate in CAP round-II, on 08.08.2025 at 3.34 p.m., one of the three candidates who had taken admission in CAP round-I in Respondent No.3 institution, cancelled his admission. As a consequence, at that point of time, one vacancy arose in the aforementioned category. 10. It is in this backdrop, that the note published by Respondent No.2 on 05.08.2025, during initiation of CAP round-II becomes significant, which reads as follows:- “IMPORTANT: The vacancy position may vary. Candidates are advised to select the choice codes irrespective of the vacancy position.” 11. The above-quoted note shows that candidates were specifically advised to select choice codes irrespective of the vacancy position, thereby indicating that the Petitioner could have participated in CAP Round-II, regardless of the vacancy position 5 of 7 (( 6 )) 35-WP-10350-2025(A).odt shown in the institutions, including Respondent No.3 institution. If the Petitioner had participated and submitted the online form through his login ID between 06.08.2025 and 08.08.2025, the vacancy that arose on 08.08.2025 at 3:34 p.m. would have been available for the Petitioner to claim, based on his performance in the entrance test. Not having participated in CAP Round-II, the Petitioner cannot now turn around and make a grievance, alleging arbitrariness on the part of Respondent No.2 or violation of the stipulations found in its own information brochure. We are satisfied with the stand taken by Respondent No.2, primarily because the process of admission through various CAP rounds is necessarily a dynamic process, to which both the institutions and the participating candidates are expected to adapt. The above- quoted important note correctly advises candidates to participate in CAP rounds so that, if a vacancy arises during this dynamic process, as happened in the present case, the concerned participating candidates can raise their claim, based on their performance in the entrance test. 12. We do not find any merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the 6 of 7 (( 7 )) 35-WP-10350-2025(A).odt present case. Hence, we are of the opinion that the present writ petition 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