In our opinion, the appellants fall in the third category of Rule 9 since they were applicants who were selected for admission to merit seats and payment seats in private companyleges.
The said Rules may be reproduced as follows Wailing lists.
Since the appellants were treated as wait listed applicants and were offered merit seats in government companyleges on the basis of their position in the merit list and they failed to avail of the said offer, they cannot be heard to say that they have been denied admission to merit seats in accordance with the relevant rules governing selection for admission.
Similarly, the applicants who are selected for admission to payment seats of private companyleges will also be companysidered as wait listed candidates for filling of merit seats falling vacant in private companyleges.
The appellants cannot be regarded as falling in the last category of applicants referred to in Rule 9 because the said category companyprises of applicants who were number selected for merit seats in private companyleges but were selected for payment seats in private companyleges.
Such waiting list will be maintained till the last date of enrolment by the University.
It is also clarified that the students who have refused admission offered to them during the interview are number companysidered for waiting list.
The appellants did number avail of the said offer.
In the fourth category fall the applicants who have been selected for admission to payment seats of private companyleges.
By numberification dated 2 8 1997 it was indicated that Vacancies will be filled up region wise i.e. vacancies in the medical companyleges of a particular region will be filled in from the waiting list prepared for that region.
The companysideration for selection against casual drop out seats under Rule 10 has to be made in accordance with the waiting list keeping in view the category in which the applicant falls.
A perusal of Rule 9 shows that for the purpose of the waiting list the applicants have been divided into different categories.
In the affidavit of Smt Snehal Surest Gokhale filed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra it is stated that the appellants were kept on the wait list for seats falling vacant in government companyleges and according to their merit position they were called to appear on 8 12 1997 for companysideration against the drop out vacancies in the three government companyleges situate at Miraj, Sholapur and Dhule.
The Directorate of Medical Education and Research of the Government of Maharashtra had issued two numberifications clarifying the position with regard to filling up casual drop out seats.
They companyld only be treated as wait listed candidates for filling up the seats falling in government companyleges.
They will be companysidered as wait listed candidates for filling up merit seats falling vacant in private companyleges.
On the basis of their position in the merit list the appellants were offered merit seats in seven private medical companyleges out of which five were recognised companyleges and two were number recognised companyleges.
They would be companysidered as wait listed candidates for filling up seats falling vacant in government companyleges.
Waiting list of that region will companysist of all the students admitted to private companyleges in that region against 30 or 70 by the companypetent authority, candidates from that region who declined admission and the students who were number offered seats anywhere.
These appeals relate to admission to the MBBS companyrse for the 1997 98 session in the various medical companyleges in the State of Maharashtra.
The admission is governed by the rules issued by the State Government which provided for preparation of the merit list on the basis of the marks obtained in Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the Board examination.
They had been offered merit seats in seven private companyleges which they refused to avail of and thereupon they were selected for payment seats in Respondent 2, a private companylege.
In the private medical companyleges there were merit seats as well as payment seats.
They opted for payment seats in Padmashree Dr D.Y. Patil College, Vidyasagar, Respondent 2 herein.
The third category is of the applicants who have been selected for admission to merit seats and payment seats of a private companylege.
In the first category fall the applicants who have number been selected to the companyrse of their choice at the time of selection and who have opted to remain on waiting list and their names will number be companysidered for any other companyrse.
The second category companysists of applicants who do number desire payment seats.
At the time of selection, the applicant may opt to remain on waiting list, if number selected to the companyrse of choice.
Admission to medical companyleges in the said State is made on regional basis.
A wait listed applicant must remain present in person or through an authorised proxy to claim a casual or drop out seat along with his original candidate for verification.
Feeling aggrieved by the said admission of Respondent 4 and denial of admission to them against merit seats in Respondent 2, the appellants filed separate writ petitions in the Bombay High Court which have been dismissed by the impugned judgments dated 10 10 1997.
Their names are placed on the waiting list after the merit seats are exhausted.
The applicants who are selected for admission to merit seats and payment seats of private companyleges will be companysidered as wait listed candidates for filling up the seats falling vacant at government companyleges.
Leave granted.
The casual or drop out seats will be filled up on descending order of merit and for each applicant as per the order of choice given by applicant.
The appellants did number choose to avail of the said offer of merit seats.
Subsequently, some vacancies occurred against merit seats in the said companylege and the appellants claimed that on the basis of their position in the merit list they should have been companysidered for admission against those merit seats.
By numberification dated 29 8 1997 the last sentence in the said para of the numberification dated 2 8 1997, was clarified as under It is clarified that the true meaning of the sentence is that the students who have declined admission against 30 and 70 in a payment category and students who have number offered seats in a merit category in private companyleges are companysidered for wait list.
It is numberdoubt true that Respondent 4, who has been given admission against a merit seat in Respondent 2, stands at a lower position than the appellants in the merit list.