Judgment : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. Two students, taking education in First Year B.Sc. Nursing have approached this court seeking direction to the respondents to allow them to appear for the examination to be held on 26th November, 2013 and a direction to respondent No.2 – University to enroll them as students of respondent No.3 college. Respondent No.3 college is supporting their cause. 2] Grievance in petition is, both petitioners passed their 12th Standard examination and it is only stated that they appeared at CET for admission to B.Sc. Nursing course. They have been admitted on 6th August, 2012 in respondent No.3 College. The course is of 4 years duration. 3] Programme for examination to be conducted at the end of First year has been published and 20th September, 2013 was the last date for submission of admission forms. The application of the petitioners for appearing at said examination have been sent back to the college as both petitioners are born after 31st December, 1995. 4] Petitioners state that respondent No.2 published circular NO. 1 of 2012 on 1st September, 2012 which prescribed norms for admission and it required student to be born on or before 31st December, 1995. Circular has been issued after admission of the petitioners and hence, it can not be extended to throw them out of college. The circular is challenged on the ground that it is arbitrary and unreasonable. 5] Counsel appearing for the petitioners has urged that the petitioners possess the necessary educational qualification and have been selected on the basis of their merit for admission. They contend that if at this juncture they are not permitted to appear for the examination, their career would suffer an irreparable set back. Hence, they seek appropriate writ for protecting their careers. 6] This Court has issued notice on 19th September, 2013. Learned AGP has appeared for respondent No.1, Advocate K.M. Suryawanshi, for respondent No.2 and Advocate C.A. Jadhav has appeared for respondent No.3. 7] Respondent No.2 has filed reply affidavit stating that the grievance is misconceived. The norm of age for admission is as per Regulation of the Indian Nursing Council, New Delhi, dated 6th September, 2006, mandating minimum age of 17 years as on 31st of December of the year of admission for B.Sc. Nursing Course. 7] Respondent No.2 has filed reply affidavit stating that the grievance is misconceived. The norm of age for admission is as per Regulation of the Indian Nursing Council, New Delhi, dated 6th September, 2006, mandating minimum age of 17 years as on 31st of December of the year of admission for B.Sc. Nursing Course. Accordingly, the Director of Medical Education and Research, Mumbai issued the brochure giving full details and on that basis MHT CET i.e. Common Entrance Test was conducted. Petitioner, as also respondent No.3, both, were, therefore aware of the said requirement. As per Clause No.4.19 of MHTCET Information Brochure, final eligibility is to be confirmed by the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nasik. In this background, Clause No.7 of the University Ordinance No.3/2010 is also pressed into service to show that it is the responsibility of the Principal of the college and also obligatory for student to obtain enrollment and eligibility prior to submission of examination form. 8] In view of this stipulation, University issue Circular No. 1/12 dated 1st September, 2012 and pointed out that student should have been born on or prior to 31st December, 1995. Shri Suryawanshi, submits that this is not a new condition and it is reiteration of the existing requirement. 9] Thus, only effort of the petitioners before us is to show that they have taken admission on 6th August, 2012 and the circular requiring completion of age of 17 years, was issued thereafter. Facts above noted by us indicate otherwise. It is not the case of petitioner that there was no such age limit at any time in past or then students not satisfying said condition were or are admitted to the course in past. They have not even filed any counter to challenge the affidavit of respondent No.2. 10] Perusal of MHTCET Information Brochure, for B.Sc. Nursing shows a stipulation that admission to Health Science Course is subject to grant of eligibility by the respondent No.2 – University. Issuance of communication dated 6th September, 2006 by the Indian Nursing Council is not in dispute. It stipulates that minimum age for admission has to be 17 years on or before 31st December of the year in which admission is sought. It is precisely on this ground that on 4.10.2012, the University has first returned the application for eligibility and enrollment of these petitioners to respondent No.3 College. It stipulates that minimum age for admission has to be 17 years on or before 31st December of the year in which admission is sought. It is precisely on this ground that on 4.10.2012, the University has first returned the application for eligibility and enrollment of these petitioners to respondent No.3 College. Respondent No.3 College thereafter has sent it back on 20th December, 2012 to respondent No.2 University. Respondent No. 2 University, again, has returned it back reiterating the same stance and settled position on 9.1.2013. Respondent No.3 again wrote back on 15.1.2013 and University has again stuck to its earlier decision on 16.1.2013. In this communication, University has directed respondent No.3 College to bring these facts to the notice of the students i.e. petitioners. The College again informed accordingly on 19.1.2013 and thereafter on 1.4.2013. It appears that College again wrote on 16.8.2013 and respondent No.2 University again reiterated the legal position and its stance. In all these communications, respondent No.3 has been again and again directed to bring the rejection of enrollment and eligibility to the notice of the petitioners. 11] Petitioners have not commented upon these developments. Respondent No.3 also has not filed any reply. Petitioners nowhere specifically plead that they have been admitted as they have cleared CET. 12] We find that challenge to imposition of such age limit on the ground that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India has been turned down by this court vide its judgment reported at 2004 (2) All. M.R. 264 “Amarsinha s/o. OmprakashKadam Vs. State of Maharashtra and others”. There, the challenge was to Rule 4.2 of the MHCET 2003 i.e. Maharashtra Health Sciences Common Entrance Test and rules for admission to Health Science Course. 13] Only contention before us is, requirement has been provided for later on and is made applicable retrospectively. We have noted that requirement is old one and was prevailing since last several years. Petitioners have relied upon an interlocutory order in identical matter in W.P. No. 8862 of 2010 passed on 29.11.2010. University has only reiterated the same vide its circular No. 1/2012, dated 1st September, 2012. 14] Petitioners through their parents, as also respondent No.3, were always aware of the said requirement. Petitioners have relied upon an interlocutory order in identical matter in W.P. No. 8862 of 2010 passed on 29.11.2010. University has only reiterated the same vide its circular No. 1/2012, dated 1st September, 2012. 14] Petitioners through their parents, as also respondent No.3, were always aware of the said requirement. Petitioners, as also respondent No.3 may have been under the impression that by advancing the argument of irreparable loss and damage, they would be in a position to succeed and Courts of law would interfere in their favour. The law on the point is well settled and there cannot be any misplaced sympathy. We find that parents of the petitioners, with open eyes, have taken a risk and no relief can be given to them in the present matter. Why petitioners did not take timely steps and secured eligibility certificate or enrollment from respondent No.2 within reasonable time is not clear. On the contrary, they have waited till fag end and then approached this Court. Ordinance No.3 of 2010 puts the obligation equally upon petitioners and respondent No.3 in this respect. Petitioners and respondent No.3 were attempting to make the things irreversible. 15] In so far as conduct of respondent No.3 is concerned, we find the same unbecoming as also intolerable. Respondent No.3 has not even cared to file any reply affidavit before this court. We direct respondent No.1 to initiate appropriate proceedings for punishing the respondent No.3 suitably. We also direct respondent No.2 to take steps in accordance with its law to consider appropriate measures to be adopted against respondent No.3. 16] We direct respondent No.3 to pay cost of Rs. 50,000/- each, to respondent No.1 State and to respondent No. 2 University, within two weeks from today. If costs are not paid, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are free to recover it in such manner as they may deem fit and proper, or by invoking such coercive measures as are within their powers, including as arrears of land revenue. Writ petition is dismissed with costs of 1,00,000/-to be paid by respondent No.3 to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Rs. 50,000/- each). 17] Rule is discharged.