ORAL JUDGMENT V. M. KANADE, J. :- All these petitions can be disposed . common judgment since the issue raised in these petitions is common and dealt with in this common judgment. 2. Petitioners in these petitions are challenging the Notification which is the respondents dated 19-8-2006 on various grounds under Article 226 institution of India. 3. Brief facts are as under :_ 4.Petitioners are parents of the students who appeared for Common Test (For short "CET"), seeking admission to the First Year Degree in Engineering. Respondents published information Brochure along with on forms for the admissions to the First Year Degree Course in challenging in the first week of July, 2006. A petition was filed in this Courting some of the clauses in the said information Brochure. This petition ed by the Association of the Management of Un-aided Engineering . (Maharashtra). The said writ petition being Writ Petition Lodging No. 2006 and certain directions were given was disposed of by the said Division Bench. 5. V. K. Tahilramani, JJ.) by Judgment and Order dated 26-7-2006 and directions were given to the respondents by the said Division Bench. Thereafter, a fresh Notification was issued dated 19-8-2006 which was d on inter-net on 20-8-2006. It was stated on the Website that CAP III seat allotment is scheduled to be held on 26-8-2006. The eligibility in the said Notification for CAP Round- III was mentioned. It was d in the said Notification that all candidate(s) who were allotted Seat in under - I and/or CAP Round- II were not eligible to apply for CAP Round respective of the fact as to whether such candidate(s) have confirmed their have admission(s) or not. 6. The grievance of the petitioners is on the restriction which has been on candidates who were allotted Seats in CAP Round- I and/or CAP II whereby they were denied participation in CAP Round- III on account selection in CAP Round- I and/or CAP Round- II . 7. The learned Counsel Mrs. Anjali Helekar and Mr. V.M. Thorat have strenuous urged and their arguments can be summarized as under :_ I (i) It is submitted that impugned Notification is discriminatory and arbitrary since the meritorious candidates did not get chance of getting admission in the College and Course of their choice and that, in the process, the said seats would be offered to the less meritorious students. (ii) It is submitted that the Honble Supreme Court has reiterated on number of occasions that merit should be the paramount criteria for ; admission, particularly in the case of professional courses. It is urged that, in the present case, on account of new eligibility criteria which is laid down for CAP Round- III, the said principle is given go-bye and \hence it is clearly illegal. (iii) It is submitted that the respondent No.3 were stopped from changing the Rules and Regulations for giving admissions at the last moment. (iv) It is submitted that on account of this procedure which was followed; by the respondents, there would be more vacant seats at the end of all the rounds and these seats would be wasted on account of inability of the respondents to fill up the Seats during the prescribed period as laid down by the Supreme Court. (v) It is submitted that if the procedure prescribed by the reason its Notification dated 19-8-2006 is followed, that would result in who had secured admissions for the first time in the second rebound getting an opportunity of one betterment choice in the third round. It is therefore submitted that at least the students who had secured ad for the first time in the second round, should be allowed to participate the third round. 8. The learned Associate Advocate General, who appeared on behalf Joint Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State, has filed his affidavit- in- reply on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and has submitted the submissions of the petitioners are accepted, there would be no en admission process and, as a result, all the students would eventually be since the Courses would not commence at least for another 15 to 20 days consequently, the students would not get at least 90 working days before of First Term which was a direction given by the Honble Supreme Court. 9. He submitted that the said provision which had been made curtail betterment choice which was given to the students since in the firs itself, the students could give 45 options which were considered in a computer programme and the best choice available was given to the students in t round itself and further opportunity was given to have one betterment choice the second round itself. He submitted that in the third round, no new sea made available to the students who did not get admission in any course first and second round. He submitted that if the permission would ha granted to the students to take part in each round irrespective of the all made to them in the first and second round then, in that case, it would cascading effect on the admission process. He invited Our attention to the n of students who had applied for admissions and the number of seats which available and the number of admissions which were secured in the first second round. 10. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf petitioners and the learned Associate Advocate General appearing on behalf the respondents. Considering the urgency in the case, we have he respective Counsel at length and we are disposing of these petitions admission stage itself. 11.Hence, rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 12. Before we deal with the rival submissions made on behalf of both parties, it is essential to give a brief background in order to appreciate controversy which is arising in this case. 13. In P. A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6 see 53 Supreme Court has held that Unaided Institutions have the right to admit student of their choice subject to the admission procedures being fair, transparence non-exploitive. The Supreme Court permitted a group of institutions, imp same or similar education, in one State or more than one State, to join together hold a CET for admission. The Supreme Court also permitted the Government to hold such CET and the Unaided Institutions which wanted the Government CET were permitted to do so. 14.In the present case, the information Brochure for the Academic Year 2006 -2007 was published in the first week of July, 2006. In the said Brochure, in it was clearly stated that only one centralized round (CAP Round- I) of allotment would be carried out by the Directorate of Technical Education, Mumbai and, thereafter, Seats remaining vacant after CAP would be filled at the institute level. A petition was filed in this Court being Writ Petition Lodging No. of 2006 which was decided by this Court on 26th July, 2006 and certain ions were given to the respondents. A petition was filed in this Court being Writ Petition Lodging No. of 2006 which was decided by this Court on 26th July, 2006 and certain ions were given to the respondents. The directions which are relevant for the propose of this petition are as under :- " In our opinion this would be a fit case where this Court in the exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction issue directions to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, to direct that the admission process after the first round in those private colleges who are, filling in seats based on CET conducted by the State will fill in the unfilled quota of seats by additional rounds. Respondents 1 and 2 to comply with this forthwith. " finally, it was directed by the said Judgment and order as under :_ "We, therefore, direct the State of Maharashtra in respect of those Private Unaided Institutions who are filling in seats through the CET conducted by the State of Maharashtra, to issue similar directions as in respect of the members of the petitioner institutions. Those directions to be issued forthwith. " In view of these directions, it appears that the State Government issued a fication dated 5-8-2006 in respect of the admission process to be followed in second round of admission process (CAP Round- II). By the said satisfaction, Rules 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 7.9 and Rules mentioned in Annexure- I of the engineering/Technology Rules and Institute Information Brochure for academic Year 2006- 07" were cancelled and it was laid down that all students se names appeared in merit- list of CAP Round- I are eligible to apply for Round- II. In the said Notification, Rule 13 reads as follows :_ 13. If candidate secures an allotment in the CAP round- II and fails to confirm the admission, then the candidate will lose the claim on both the earlier allotment of CAP round- I and also on the allotment of CAP Round- II. Such candidates will also be debarred from participating in further additional CAP rounds, if any." thereafter, on 19-8-2006, another Notification was issued laying down the procedure which would be followed in respect of the third round of the , centralized allotment process (CAP Round- III). Such candidates will also be debarred from participating in further additional CAP rounds, if any." thereafter, on 19-8-2006, another Notification was issued laying down the procedure which would be followed in respect of the third round of the , centralized allotment process (CAP Round- III). In the said Notification, it was, stated that all candidates to whom seats had been allotted in CAP Round- II had confirm the admissions so made on/or before 22-8-2006, failing which the admission(s) so granted would automatically stand irretrievably cancelled and the at for which such admission(s) is granted will be treated as vacant and therefore available for grant of admission in the next round. It was further stated the eligibility criteria that all candidate(s) who were allotted seats in CAP und- I and or II irrespective of the fact whether such candidate(s) had firmed their respective admissions or not, such candidate (s) were not eligible to apply for CAP Round- III. 15. The grievance of the petitioners essentially is that by virtue 0 Notifications dated 5-8-2006 and 19-8-2006, the candidates who had sec admissions in the first and second round were not allowed to take part in Round- III. It has been strenuously urged before us that if the eligibility criteria as laid down in Notification dated 5-8-2006 and Notification dated 19-8-20 taken into consideration, according to the petitioners, a representation was to the students, initially, that only if they confirm the admissions by the se round then they would be permitted to participate in the third and further It is further urged that a specific direction was given by the Division Bench additional rounds had to be conducted and these directions were not fall since the students who had secured admissions in the first and second round were not permitted to participate in the third round and further grievance of students is that though they had given 45 preferences in the first round, often, by the end of first and second round, the students could not get a seat is College of their first and second choice and these seats finally were given t students who were less meritorious. These submissions made by the lea Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners cannot be accepted for following reasons. 16. These submissions made by the lea Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners cannot be accepted for following reasons. 16. The submission of the petitioners that the representation was made they would be entitled to apply for third round only if the admission was sec by the end of second round, is misconceived. In the Notification dated 5-8-2 what is stated is as under :_ " In pursuance of the orders passed by the Honble High Court, Mumbai in the Writ Petition (L) No. 1629/2006, dated 26-6-2006, the Direct of Technical Education is conducting second round of Central Allotment Process (CAP) to enable eligible candidates to have at I one chance of betterment of choices, depending Upon the vacancies may be available at the start of Round- II of CAP. In view of aforesaid Court order Rule Nos. 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 7.9 and Rules mention Annexure- I of the "Engineering / Technology _ Rules and Intuition Information Brochure for Academic Years 2006- 07" are he cancelled. " Eligible Candidates: All the Maharashtra State Candidates and A candidates whose names appeared in the respective Merit lists of Round- I are eligible to apply for CAP round- II. Rule 13 of the Notification dated 5-8-2006 reads as under :_ "13. If candidate secures an allotment in the CAP round- II and fail confirm the admission, then the candidate will lose the claim on both earlier allotment of CAP round- I and also on the allotment of Round- II. Such candidates will also be debarred from participation further additional CAP rounds, if any." The contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted since Rule 13 merely an embargo on the candidate participating any further if he has been allotment seat in Round- I and/or Round- II. The interpretation which is tried to be given that only after payment of admission fee, such candidates would be allotment participate in Round- III is misconceived. The last line of the said rule viz. such candidates will also be debarred from participating in further additional CAP rounds, if any “, in the country , puts an embargo on such candidates from further Participating in the additional rounds. The last line of the said rule viz. such candidates will also be debarred from participating in further additional CAP rounds, if any “, in the country , puts an embargo on such candidates from further Participating in the additional rounds. The conjoint reading of Notification dated 5-8-2006 and 19-8-2006 clearly demonstrates respondents had taken a decision not to permit the students who had taken admission in the seats which allotted to them in the first and second rounds to further participate in subsequent rounds in order to ensure finality to the admission process. It is us that if this procedure had not been followed, the respondents would, in , would have to ask each individual candidate about his preference to all the in various Courses and only thereafter further proceed to give admissions to maining candidates. Such a procedure would never attain finality within a ribbed period as is mandated by the Honble Supreme Court. In fact, in the information Brochure that was published in the first week of July, 2006, the direction students who were permitted to participate only in one CAP round pursuant to ,directions given by the Division Bench of this Court, were given benefit of betterment choice. The directions given by the Division Bench cannot be interpreted to mean that there would be endless additional rounds as long as each student gets seat of his choice. If such an interpretation is given to the directions en by the Division Bench of this Court, it would be against the mandate given the Supreme Court in P. A. lnamdars case (supra). 17. The facts as disclosed by the learned Associate Advocate General , lose that in all there were about 41,777 seats available, out of which, after the t round, 23,500 students took admissions. In the second round, 25,386 students were admitted and for the third round 7,989 students remained. It is not dispute that no new seats were made available to the students who were to be allotted in the remaining 7,989 seats. Therefore, the submission of the petitioners Counsel that less meritorious students would get seats in the third round cannot be accepted. It is not dispute that no new seats were made available to the students who were to be allotted in the remaining 7,989 seats. Therefore, the submission of the petitioners Counsel that less meritorious students would get seats in the third round cannot be accepted. The balance 7,989 seats which were available to be filled- in the third round were the seats which were offered to the remaining dates who had not secured admissions in the first and second round and for first time they were made eligible to get admission for these Courses. In It, if the submission of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is accepted then, not only the students who had taken admissions in first round viz. 23500 seats but also the students who were admitted in the second round viz. 25383 seats, would still opt for the balance seats and if this is lowed then, again, 7,989 seats would fall vacant if the students from the first d second round who were already admitted, allowed to participate in the third round, This again would require 4th and 5th round to be taken. The submission of learned Associate Advocate General that this process would not attain finality the available time appears to be more probable. The submission of the petitioners that, therefore, this procedure which is adopted by the respondents is arbitrary and volatile of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, therefore, cannot accepted. 18. Even otherwise, if, at this stage, any change is made in the procedure of mission it would have cascading effect and the entire admission process would put in jeopardy which would result in further delay in the commencement of Courses by the respective Colleges. We, therefore, feel that even otherwise it not possible for us to interfere with the admission process while exercising our extraordinary jurisdiction which is vested in us under Constitution of India. 19. In the result, there is no merit in the submissions made by the lea Counsel appearing for the petitioners. All the above petitions are, there dismissed. Rule in each of the petitions stands discharged. Under circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.