AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.D. MANE, J.—Heard Shri Barlota, Counsel for petitioner and Shri Chitlarge, A.G.R for respondents No. 1 and 3.
We perused the Return filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1.
Out of 3 seats, reserved for Project Affected persons, 2 seats have already been filled In. The grievance of the petitioner is that the students, who were, selected from the category of Project Affected persons have secured less marks than the petitioner. We, however, find no merit in this grievance of the petitioner. A distinguishable feature in the case is that the students having less marks than the marks obtained by petitioner, who have already been admitted, are the sons of the Project Affected persons whereas the petitioner is a grand-son of the Project Affected person. We are of the view that the sons have more preferential rights than the grand-sons under the scheme. We, therefore, find that this distinction by itself will make the petitioner disentitle for reservation to the seats which have already been filled in.
In the result, petition is dismissed and rule stands discharged, no costs.
Petition dismissed