JUDGMENT : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4 and Mr. Akshay Naik, learned counsel for respondent no.5 by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. 2. The question to be looked into is whether change in placement of petitioner and respondent no.5, respectively, on 4th of June, 2015 by the District Level Committed headed by respondent no.3 for grant of a School is in accordance with law or not. It is not in dispute that both, petitioner and respondent no.5, applied and in first consideration on 3rd of February, 2015, petitioner has been placed at Sr.No.1 while respondent no.5 has been placed at Sr.No.2 for grant of an unaided school at village Dhotra Shinde. 3. As required by the provisions of Section 6 of the Maharashtra Self Financed Schools (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2012 (hereinafter to referred as “2012 Act') this provisional placement was published and objections were invited. The objections received were scrutinized in the meeting dated 12th of May, 2015 and the placement was maintained. This placement is required to be sent to State Government for further consideration and grant of school. 4. It is not in dispute that same Committee has on 4th of June, 2015 published another list in which the placement has been altered and respondent no.5 has been placed at Sr. No. 1 and petitioner has been shifted to Sr. No. 2. 5. In this background, contention of Advocate Mr. Mirza is, Committee headed by respondent no.1 could not have undertaken impugned exercise as law does not permit. In alternative, he adds that as after inviting suggestions and objections, petitioner was placed at Sr.No.1, the displacement from that number causes a prejudice and hence the entitlement which ensued because of that placement could not have been taken away without extending petitioner an opportunity of hearing. He is relying upon the provisions of Section 4 and Section 6 of the 2012 Act, mentioned supra to substantiate his contention. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has relied upon reply affidavit to submit that an error which had occurred inadvertently has been corrected and therefore the placement got changed. 7. He is relying upon the provisions of Section 4 and Section 6 of the 2012 Act, mentioned supra to substantiate his contention. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has relied upon reply affidavit to submit that an error which had occurred inadvertently has been corrected and therefore the placement got changed. 7. Advocate Shri Akshay Naik appearing for respondent no.5 is relying on the provisions of Section 4 as also Section 6 read with Schedule 'C' of 2012 Act to urge that the petitioner ought to have been given 10 marks for the financial condition and inadvertently it was given 8 marks. When the list as finalized on 12th of September 2015 was perused by respondent no.2 Director of Education (Secondary and Higher Secondary), he sent back the matter to respondent no.3 for correcting that error and accordingly that error has been corrected. He, therefore, contends that in this situation as steps taken are in administrative exercise of power and the factual error has been rectified, no legal right of petitioner has been violated. Writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to restore an illegality. 8. It is not in dispute that the consideration of rival claims has to be in terms of the Government Resolution dated 25th of November, 2013 and Schedule “D” therewith. It is also not in dispute that both, petitioner and respondent no.5 were initially given 8 marks and after rectification, against head “financial” stability petitioner has been given 10 marks. 9. At Sr. No. 2 in Schedule 'D', an educational institution having balance of Rs.5 lakhs in its bank account and amount of Rs.10 lakhs or more in Fixed Deposit for a period of five years is to be given 10 marks. If the balance in bank account is Rs.5 lakhs and FDR for 5 years is in excess of Rs.5 lakhs but up to Rs.9,99,000/-, 8 marks are to be awarded. This is the only yardstick prescribed for examining financial stability. Schedule 'D' also stipulates that cash in balance in bank account cannot be withdrawn for a period of one year. 10. Financial condition of respondent no.5 has been placed on record in rejoinder filed by petitioner in paragraph no.5. The same is reproduced here for ready perusal. Sr. No. Amount Duration 1. Bank Balance Rs.6,00,211/- As on 04/10/2014 2. FDR Rs.5 Lakhs 4/10/2014 to 4/10/2019 3. FDR Rs.2 Lakhs 21/10/2013 to 21/10/2018 4. 10. Financial condition of respondent no.5 has been placed on record in rejoinder filed by petitioner in paragraph no.5. The same is reproduced here for ready perusal. Sr. No. Amount Duration 1. Bank Balance Rs.6,00,211/- As on 04/10/2014 2. FDR Rs.5 Lakhs 4/10/2014 to 4/10/2019 3. FDR Rs.2 Lakhs 21/10/2013 to 21/10/2018 4. FDR Rs.5 Lakhs 26/3/2012 to 26/3/2017 5. FDR Rs.3 Lakhs 26/3/2012 to 26/3/2017 11. In this background when legal provisions are looked into, Section 4(1) of 2012 Act, in its first part, mandates that such applicant desirous of establishing a new school has to deposit the amount as specified in Schedule 'C' as Fixed Deposit in any Bank. Perusal of Schedule 'C' reveals that where a new school from primary level to higher Secondary level is proposed in village Panchayat area, minimum amount to be deposited is Rs.5 lakhs. Later part of Section 4(1) stipulates that before a Letter of Intent is issued to successful applicant that amount is required to be deposited jointly in the name of Management and concerned District Education Officer (Secondary) by way of National Saving Certificate or Fixed Deposit, etc. 12. The bank balance of respondent no. 5 on 4th of October, 2014 pointed out in counter affidavit of petitioner is Rs.6,00,211/-. Similarly, FDR of Rs.5 lakhs for period from 4th from October, 2014 to 4th of October, 2019 (five years) has been pointed ort. Other FDR of Rs.5 lakhs for period from 26th of March, 2012 to 26th of March, 2017 has also been pointed ort. However, this period commences prior to 4th of October, 2014. There are two other FDRs in the sum of Rs.2 lakhs and 3 lakhs, respectively. Those FDRs are also for the period of five years but then there also the period commences from a date prior to 4th of October, 2014. 13. Shri Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner, in this lack ground has invited our attention to the Government Resolution dated 19th of August, 2015 to urge that said G.R. expressly clarifies that such FDR must be valid for a period of three years from the date on which the proposal is moved by respective institutions. 13. Shri Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner, in this lack ground has invited our attention to the Government Resolution dated 19th of August, 2015 to urge that said G.R. expressly clarifies that such FDR must be valid for a period of three years from the date on which the proposal is moved by respective institutions. This clarification has given after the relevant date i.e. after 4th of October, 2014 and in Schedule ‘D’ in Government Resolution dated 25th of November, 2013 with reference to which eligibility if petitioner and respondent no.5 has been judged, there was no such stipulation. The only rider was, amount in bank account could not have been withdrawn for a period of one year and existing FDR of Rs.10 lacs for five years. 14. Thus, respondent no.5 in terms of Schedule ‘D’ Clause 2, pointed out bank balance in excess of Rs.5 lakhs and also four Fixed Deposit receipts where total amount of Rs.15 Lakhs has been shown as invested for period of five years. It appears that petitioner had raised an objection to FDR vide receipt No.088565 for period 21st of October, 2013 to 21st of October, 2018. That FDR is in the sum of Rs.2 lakhs and objection of petitioner was accepted by the Committee. Hence, even if that FDR is discarded, respondent no.5 has shown total FDRs, worth Rs.13 Lakhs. All were/are for duration of 5 years. 15. In this situation, as Letter of Intent is yet to be issued, it is clear that grant of 8 marks to respondent no.5 was an error which has been rightly corrected by the Committee. 16. The correction is supported by records and petitioner can challenge the same if the facts looked into by Committee are incorrect. However, its insistence is on grant of an opportunity of hearing. Petitioner has not pointed out any prejudice caused to it in the matter. Its submission that FDR obtained prior to 4th of October, 2014 might have been used by respondent no.5 for some other school is without any merit as it was not the objection raised before Committee. Petitioner has not pleaded that any other unaided school has been awarded to respondent no.5 after 2012 till 4th of October, 2014. 17. The respondent nos.2 and 3 were only processing the proposals received and have corrected an inadvertent error which has occurred while compiling data. Petitioner has not pleaded that any other unaided school has been awarded to respondent no.5 after 2012 till 4th of October, 2014. 17. The respondent nos.2 and 3 were only processing the proposals received and have corrected an inadvertent error which has occurred while compiling data. Accordingly, they have placed respondent No.5 at Sr.No.1 and petitioner at Sr.No.2. In this situation, we find no substance in the challenge as raised in the petition. Petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.