JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. The petitioner seeks a direction that the respondent should grant him dmission in the ETE course for the academic sessions 2007-2009.
2. The petitioner had completed his schooling and finished in the 10+2 examination successfully. Apparently, he had competed and was entitled for admission in the previous academic session 2006-2008. However, his candidature was rejected because he was unable to produce an acceptable certificate of being in the EFA category.
3. Mr. Bisaria, learned Counsel contended that the respondent’s failure to admit the petitioner is arbitrary. Learned Counsel submitted that according to the original schedules disclosed in the prospectus/admission rules, the declaration of list of successful candidates was to be followed by admission on 24th, 25th and 27th August, 2007 for persons whose names figured in the first list. It was submitted that the petitioner’s roll number was included in the first list. However, that list was declared on 27th August, 2007. The petitioner was unable to attend and report to the institution because of a personal difficulty, his grand-mother was taken ill. The re-scheduled reporting dates were 27th, 29th and 30th August, 2007.
4. Learned Counsel contended that soon after returning and becoming aware of his success in the first list, he approached the respondent. Learned Counsel relied upon the pleadings in this regard and contended that despite approaching them, the respondents categorically held out positive promises till 22nd October, 2007. It was submitted that only on 22.10.2007 the respondent denied admission.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondents appearing on advance notice submitted that according to the schedule in the brochure/admission bulletin, Para VI(b), if a candidate does not report for admission on the specified date along with original documents his right to admission would stand cancelled and the vacancy would be offered to other candidates in order of merit. Reliance was also placed on Clause VI(c) It was contended that the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court after completion of the admission process and commencement of the academic session, on 1.10.2007. The further list, it was submitted, was published on 26.9.2007 and closure of admission took place on 27.9.2007.
6. The petitioner has approached this Court after declaration of the 4th list and admission of all the candidates. It is contended that there are left over seats, 12 vacancies are yet to be filled. Clause VI to the extent it is relevant is extracted below:
DECLARATION OF LIST OF ADMISSION
(a) xxx xxx
(b) If any candidate does not report for admission at allotted DIET/Insitute on specified date, Along with original documents/fee, his/her right of admission will stand cancelled and the vacant seats will be offered to other candidates in order of merit.
(c) After submission of report by the Principal of the institute that candidate did not turn-up reported for admission within specified period the right of candidate for admission will be forfeited and no further request will be entertained in this regard. Therefore candidates are advised to see the admission list very carefully and report on prescribed date. time at allotted institute for admission promptly.
(d) First the admission of DIETs will be completed by way of declaring 1st list and subsequent lists as per vacancy status in DIETs. After 4th list or filling of initial sanctioned seats whichever is earlier, the admission of DIETs will be closed.
7. Though the petitioner’s name was included in the first list, he was unable to report within the re-scheduled time. There may be some merits in the petitioner’s grievance that he was unable to report due to some personal difficulty, yet while approaching this Court as he chose to do on 25.10.2007 apart from making bald assertions, copies of the representation said to have been made have not been produced. Further, the effect of Clause VI(b) and (c) has nowhere been disputed and these stipulations have not been challenged.
8. It is, therefore, evident that the closure of admissions took place on 27.9.2007 and the academic sessions commenced on 1st October, 2007. In my opinion, even though the petitioner might have figured in the first list, he has approached this Court belatedly. It was open to him to approach the Court on the basis of the admitted merit in time, after 31st August, 2007 because admittedly the first list was followed by three other lists. In these circumstances, although there may be some seats unfilled by the respondent, it would not be appropriate for the Court to exercise discretion in this matter.
9. In view of the laches exhibited by the petitioner, this Court declines to exercise its discretion to entertain this petition. The writ petition and CM 14840/2007 fail and are therefore, dismissed. No costs.