Bombay High Court
Aishwarya V Jain vs Maharashtra State Technical ... on 31 March, 2016
Bench: S.C. Dharmadhikari
Rng 1
WPL.883.16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.883 OF 2016
Aishwarya V.Jain )
Age 21 years, Occupation: Student
residing at 502,Nav Bahar Building )
Khar (West) 15th Road, Mumbai-400 052 .. Petitioner
vs
1. Maharashtra State Board of Technical )
Board Mumbai Sub-Region Through its Director
Mumbai Sub-Region, 2nd floor, Govt
Polytechnic Building, 49, Kherwadi, )
Mumbai-400 051.
2. Rachana Sansad College School of )
Interior Design, 27B, Shankar Ghanekar
Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025.
)
3. Rachana Sansad, 27B, Shankar Ghanekar
Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 015.
4. The State of Maharashtra )
Directorate of Higher and Technical
Education, 3, Mahapalika Marg,
Post BoxNo.1967, Opp Metro Cinema )
Mumbai-400 001. .. Respondents
...
Mr.Mihir Desai Senior counsel i/b Ms.Devyani Kulkarni for Petitioner
Mr.R.V.Govilkar for Respondent no.1
Mr.S.C.Naidu a/w Mr.Aniket Poojari i/b M/s C.R.Naidu & Co for
Respondent nos.2 and 3.
Mr.M.D.Naik Assistant Government Pleader for State-Respondent no.4
...
CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI &
G.S.KULKARNI, JJ
THURSDAY 31st MARCH 2016
JUDGMENT (Per G.S.Kulkarni, J)
WPL.883.16.doc
1. The Petitioner who is a third year student pursuing
Diploma in Interior Design and Decoration Course (for short the 'said
course') at the respondent no.2-college, by this Petition, has
challenged the action of respondent nos.1 and 2 in denying the
petitioner appearance for third year annual examination to be held
in April, 2016.
2.
Respondent no.2-Rachana Sansad College School of
Interior Design is stated to be recognized and affiliated to the
Respondent no.1-Maharashtra State Technical Board. The Diploma
course is of three years with a pattern of an annual examination.
The Petitioner was admitted for the First year of the said course for
the Academic year 2013-14. First year examination was held in
March 2014. The Petitioner cleared all subjects except the subject of
'Interior Design Theory'. As the rules permitted, the Petitioner was
granted admission to the second year of the Diploma course as a
ATKT (Allowed to keep term) student.
WPL.883.16.doc
3. In October, 2014 Petitioner appeared for the ATKT
examination for the subject of Interior Design in which she had
failed. However, Petitioner did not pass. In March/April 2015
Petitioner appeared for the second year Final examination and
cleared all the subjects. However, the said back log in respect of the
first year examination in the subject Interior Design Theory could not
be cleared by the Petitioner even by March/April, 2015 examination.
The Petitioner however, approached the respondent no.2-College for
admission to the Third year of the said course.
4. At this stage, it may be appropriate to note that the
examination regulations of Maharashtra State Board of Technical
Education. These Regulations are framed under the powers conferred
on respondent no.1 under Maharashtra Act 38 of 1997. Regulation
2 provides for "Rules of Admission" to the course. As regards the
eligibility for admission to the third year of the said course the
following requirement is stipulated:
WPL.883.16.doc
B Yearly Pattern Courses
Admission to Year Eligibility
Third 1) Pass in First Year
2)Pass/ATKT in Second
Year
Result Status with PLY shall not
be eligible
5. The stipulation of the above Rule is therefore that a
candidate is required to have passed in the First year or pass / have a
ATKT in the second year and lastly a candidate having remark "PLY"
(Pending lower year) in the mark sheet shall not be eligible for
admission to the third year course. Notwithstanding the above clear
requirement of the Rule, the Petitioner was granted admission by the
Respondent no.2-College for the third year course.
6. The Petitioner claims that she accordingly pursued
the Third year in the present Academic year 2015-16 as also in
October 2015 appeared for the back-log paper of First year in which
the Petitioner had failed and cleared the same. A Mark sheet to that
effect, dated 15th January 2016 is annexed at Exhibit-I page 48 of the
paper Book.
WPL.883.16.doc
7. On 13th February, 2016 the Petitioner was informed by
the Principal of Respondent no.2-College that there were problems
with the on-line examination form of the Petitioner for Third year
and for this purpose Respondent no.1- Board was contacted.
Respondent no.1 informed the Principal that the Petitioner will not
be able to appear for the third year examination as the Petitioner had
not cleared ATKT subject of the first year at the time of taking
admission for Third year being the requirement under the rules.
The Petitioner thereafter tried to persuade Respondent nos. 1 and 2,
however, no response was received in that regard. On 13 th February,
2016, Petitioner met the Deputy Secretary (Technical) of Respondent
No.1 who informed the Petitioner, that the Petitioner will not be able
to appear for the examination as per Rules of respondent no.1 as the
admission of the Petitioner itself was illegal having not cleared First
year examination so as to become eligible for admission to the Third
year. Petitioner states that she has future plans of undertaking
Master's Program in Interior Designing at Florence Design Academy
in Italy, after she completes Third year for which she has already paid
WPL.883.16.doc
annual fees and therefore, it is thus imperative for her to appear for
third year final examinations.
8. Mr.Desai learned senior counsel for the petitioner
would urge that the Petitioner is not at a fault as despite PLY
(Pending lower year) she was granted admission by respondent
no.2-Institution for the third year course and thus, she has bonafide
pursued the Third year course. Thus, at this stage respondent no.2
as also Respondent no.1-Board, cannot deny the petitioner from
appearing at the third year final examination. Petitioner was not
informed about the Rules and contrary to the same she was granted
admission by Respondent no.2. There is no wrong or malafides on
the part of the Petitioner and therefore, she cannot be disallowed to
appear for the examination. There was an inadvertent mistake on
the part of Respondent no.2-Institution in making admission of the
Petitioner for the Third year course, oblivious of the requirement of
the Rules. Though admission of the Petitioner is contrary to the
Rules nonetheless this Court should interfere and grant reliefs to the
WPL.883.16.doc
Petitioner to permit her to appear for the examination by issuing a
writ of Mandamus directing respondent no.1 to issue admit Card to
the Petitioner for ensuing oral examination commencing from 31 st
March 2016 and for written examination to be held from 13 th April
2016 to 18th April 2016 and permit her to appear for all these
examinations. In support of the submissions, Mr.Desai learned senior
counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions:
(1) 1986 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 740 (Rajendra Prasad
Mathur vs Karnataka University & anr).
(2) (1989) 1 Supreme Court Cases 399 (Ashok Chand
Singhvi vs University of Jodhpur & ors).
(3) Division Bench decision of this Court in Writ Petition
(Lodging) No.462 of 2011 dated 20 th April 2011 (Raunak
Gordon Denoronha vs University of Mumbai & anr).
(4) 2003 (5) Bom.C.R.464 (Ganesh R.Baheti vs University
of Pune & anr)
9. Mr.Govilkar learned counsel for the respondent
no.1 in opposing the writ petition submits that the reliefs as prayed
by the Petitioner cannot be granted in view of the clear mandate of
the admission Rules which required the Petitioner to clear the First
year of the course in seeking admission to the third year course. A
WPL.883.16.doc
prayer contrary to the rules is not sustainable. Mr.Govilkar would
urge that contention of the Petitioner that it is an inadvertent
mistake on the part of respondent no.2 also cannot be accepted in as
much as, the entire admission as also the examination process is
computerized and therefore, there is no scope for any error to be
committed by the respondent no.2-Institution. It is submitted that it
cannot be accepted that respondent no.2-college is not aware about
the rules and regulations of respondent no.1 which are binding on
respondent no.2-college in making admissions. It is therefore, urged
that this writ petition does not call for any interference of this Court
in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also
having perused the Rules and relevant documents as placed on
record of this writ petition, we find that there is much substance in
the submissions as urged on behalf of respondent no.1-Board. The
Rules for making admissions to the third year course, as we have set
WPL.883.16.doc
out hereinabove are clear. The requirement under the Rules for
admission to third year is three-fold; that a candidate should pass in
the first year examination or a candidate should either pass or have a
ATKT in the second year, further, the result status in the Mark sheet
of PLY (Pending Lower Year) shall not be eligible for admission to
the third year of the said course. Admittedly, the Petitioner had not
cleared her First year when she sought admission to the Third year
course. Despite this deficiency, respondent no.2 granted admission
to the Petitioner and permitted her to pursue the course. This was
wholly impermissible and in the teeth of the admission Rules
(supra). It is only when the petitioner went to make an application
for appearing for the final examination, through a computerized
method, her form was not accepted, because of the deficiency of
having not cleared the first year at the time of admission to the third
year. If this system was to be manual perhaps even respondent
no.1-Board may not have noticed this deficiency with so much of
accuracy, as noticed in the computerized system, probably ending up
in the petitioner mistakenly appearing at the examination. This was
WPL.883.16.doc
very well averted. The examination form of the Petitioner therefore,
was rightly not accepted as the admission itself was faulty and
contrary to Rules. The Petitioner therefore, cannot seek a writ of this
Court which would go contrary to the admission Rules framed by the
respondent no.1 and binding on all institutions affiliated to it. The
Rules cannot be rendered nugatory and/or of no consequence.
11.
It is a settled principle of law that this Court in
exercise of its writ jurisdiction would not interfere in academic
matters. The Rules in question set out academic standards in
education and are framed by experts in the field. The standards
cannot be interfered and/or diluted and ought to command highest
respect from all stakeholders. Students are clearly bound by these
rules and the standards contained in it, in pursuing such courses of
such high academic value.
12. We now refer to the decisions as relied on behalf of
the Petitioner. Reliance on behalf of the Petitioner on the decision of
WPL.883.16.doc
the Supreme Court in the case of "Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs.
Karnataka University & Anr.1, in our opinion, would not assist the
Petitioner. In this decision the Supreme Court has categorically held
that the condition of eligibility laid down by the Karnataka University
is valid and binding and that it would not be correct for the Court to
sit in judgment over the decision of the University in relation to the
academic question of equivalence, as the Court would not possess
expertise. Having observed so, only because the concerned students
in the said case were continued in their course of study in the
Engineering College under the interim orders of the High Court and
thereafter the Supreme Court and that their admission should not be
disturbed after a period of four years, the Supreme Court in the facts
of the case and exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution held that though the students were not eligible for
admission to the engineering degree course and that they had no
legitimate claim to such admission, permitted the students to
continue their studies.
In exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
1 1986(Supp) Supreme Court Cases 740
WPL.883.16.doc
Constitution, we are bound by the mandate of law laid down in this
judgment and also it would be our endeavour to see that the
Respondent No.1 is held by the standards as contained in the Rules.
A reliance on this decision on behalf of the Petitioners is thus
completely misplaced.
13. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Ashok
Chand Singhavi Vs. University of Jodhpur & Ors." 1 would also not
assist the Petitioner. The facts in the said case are totally
incomparable to the facts of the present case. In that case the
application of the candidate was entertained when the Resolution of
the University Syndicate was in vogue. The Vice Chancellor had
directed admission of such candidates when the Resolution of the
University-Syndicate was kept alive and in that situation the
Supreme Court had observed that the candidate had disclosed all the
material. It was held that the decision of the Vice Chancellor which
though may be a mistake, should not cause prejudice to the
candidate. Moreover, the candidate had secured more than 60% of
1 (1989)1 Supreme Court Cases 399
WPL.883.16.doc
the marks in aggregate in Diploma examination and was not
disqualified from the admission on that count. In the present Writ
Petition admittedly the Petitioner was not qualified as per the Rules
for an admission to the third year course. This decision therefore, is
of no avail to the Petitioner.
14. The Division Bench decision of this Court in "Ganesh
R.Baheti Vs. University of Pune & Anr." 1 was in a case where the
University had accepted the examination form and permitted the
Petitioner to appear for the examinations and thereafter, the
University had taken an action to cancel the examination for the
fourth and fifth year of the B.Arch course on the ground that the
Petitioner could not have been permitted to keep the fourth and fifth
year terms. As the Petitioner was permitted to appear for
examination by the University, it was held that the University cannot
withhold the result. However, the situation is completely different in
the present case. The Respondent No.1 has rightly at the threshold
objected on the admission of the Petitioner which is illegal and
1 2003(5) Bom.C.R. 464
WPL.883.16.doc
contrary to the Rules and accordingly, has not accepted the
examination form of the Petitioner.
15. In "Raunak Gordon Denoronha Vs. University of
Mumbai & Anr." 1, the Division Bench was concerned as regards the
eligibility of a migrated student who was issued a letter dated 9 th
August,2010 by the University, informing that his application for
eligibility was under process. The Petitioner therein was not
informed that he is not eligible. The Petitioner had contended that
such a letter was the usual form and a eligibility certificate, which
was not disputed by the University in the affidavit in reply and on
the basis of this fact the Court permitted the candidate to pursue the
studies for which admission was granted. These being the facts, then
the reliance on the decision of the Division Bench is totally
unfounded in the context of the present case.
16. We may usefully refer to a recent decision of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of "Oneil Sandeep Bhapkar Vs.
1 Writ Petition (lodg)no.462/11 dated 20.4.2011
WPL.883.16.doc
Savitribai Phule Pune University & Ors." (Writ Petition No.2506 of
2016, dated 26th February,2016) to which one of us
(S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.) was a member. The case pertained to the
admission to BSL LLB course wherein a prayer was made for
declaration of result of 7th Semester of the Course. Since the
Petitioner did not clear the third year examination held in April,2015
namely 1/3rd of the total subjects thereat, the Petitioner was not held
eligible for the fourth year examination. Similar contentions as raised
in the present case were urged, that it was not the fault of the
petitioner that he was granted admission for fourth year
examination. Repelling the contentions as urged by the Petitioner
and distinguishing the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in
the case of "Ganesh R.Baheti" (supra), the Division Bench observed
as under:-
"13. Ms. Aparna Dhavale could not convince us that the
Petitioner possesses either a fundamental or a legal right as a
failed student to get more opportunities to appear for the next
year or the next semester and with an admitted backlog. Once
the Petitioner appeared for the subject/s more than once, could
not clear it, and even on revaluation the result was not altered,
then, any provisional admission does not confer a right in the
Petitioner to seek the Writ of Mandamus as claimed. A failed
student allowed to keep terms cannot claim a higher right then
WPL.883.16.doc
what the permissible academic policy is. If the academic policy is
that a student can clear the backlog together with the fresh
examination subjects, then to avail of that policy, the Petitioner
must establish that he is entitled to continue the studies as not
only the backlog but the fresh examination subjects have all
been cleared in terms of such policy. ... ... .... ...."
17. For the foregoing reasons, there is no room for any doubt
in our mind that this writ petition ought to fail. The Writ Petition is
accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
G.S.KULKARNI, J
ig S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J
WPL.883.16.doc
