Judgment :- A.H. Joshi, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader Mr. D.P. Thakre waives service for respondent nos. 1 and 2, and learned Adv. Mr. A.A. Naik, for respondent No. 3. 2. Respondent No. 3 has already filed Affidavitin- Reply furtherance to the direction given by this Court by order dated 21st January, 2010. 3. Heard finally by consent of parties. 4. Admitted facts are as follows:- [a] The petitioner is a female student who has applied for admission to MBBS Course for 2009-2010 with the respondent No. 3. [b] The admissions are governed by set of Rules framed by the Association of Private Medical Colleges, and those rules are incorporated in the prospectus issued by the respondent No. 3. [c] Ten seats are available for students of Other Backward Classes category. [d] Five seats amongst those are to be filled in from amongst those domiciled in Maharashtra and five for students applying from outside Maharashtra. [e] Over all thirty per cent seats, i.e., three seats, including amongst OBC category are reserved for female candidates. [f] Earmarking or division of female reservation is not declared in the prospectus from amongst Maharashtra OBC and non-Maharashtra OBC candidates. [g] Petitioner was called for a personal interview – counseling, informing that she was in the waiting list. [h] Petitioner was informed by communication dated 13th July, 2009 that she has not been admitted. [i] Entire reservation, i.e., thirty percent female candidates, is filled in by allotting entire i.e., 30% equal to three seats from Maharashtra OBC category students. [j] Petitioner has scored 173 marks in the Entrance Test. [k] Candidate less in merit as compared to petitioner from female candidate category is admitted from OBC Maharashtra category. [l] The prospectus clearly indicates that on the last date, namely on 30th September, 2009, if any number of seats remain vacant, they shall be filled in by the Management on its own discretion. [m] Petitioner sought for information under the Right to Information Act by her application dated 11th August, 2009. [n] The information was furnished to the petitioner by letter dated 7th September, 2009 showing marks obtained by the candidates who were admitted, when petitioner came to know for sure that student with lesser merit in female category was admitted. [m] Petitioner sought for information under the Right to Information Act by her application dated 11th August, 2009. [n] The information was furnished to the petitioner by letter dated 7th September, 2009 showing marks obtained by the candidates who were admitted, when petitioner came to know for sure that student with lesser merit in female category was admitted. [o] Petition does not contain any explanation as to why: [i] the petitioner did not punctually approach this Court seeking redressal of her grievance soon after she was declined admission in July, 2009; [ii] she kept inordinately waiting even till she received information by letter dated 7th September, 2009; [iii] she did not approach this Court before 30th September, 2009; 5. This Court is of considered view that ten seats of OBC category in the ratio of thirty per cent reservation should have either been equally divided in the seats available in Maharashtra and outside Maharashtra. 6. Whenever such division would result in fraction, and it was impermissible to so divide, there could have been a common merit list of female candidates of Maharashtra and Non-Maharashtra categories and admissions could have been offered according to general merit, even though such procedure was not declared in the prospectus. 7. In absence of any declaration that all reserved seats for female students would be given to Maharashtra OBC students, the respondent No. 3 has granted admission to less meritorious candidates by shifting entire reservation in Maharashtra category, 8. By this act, the Respondent No.3 has denied to non-Maharashtra female candidates the opportunity of admission unjustly and arbitrarily. We do not approve of this conduct. 9. We, however, find ourselves unable to grant any indulgence in favour of the petitioner in view of her acquiescence and laches, particularly when it is evident that in view of clear declaration by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Medical Council of India Vs. Madhu Singh & ors. [ (2002) 7 SCC 258 ] that no admission can be allowed after cut off date, petitioner has, by her own act, created a handicap in her own way of getting some relief. 10. In the circumstances, Rule is discharged. Parties are directed to bear own costs.