Parakh Jaiprakash Shahal vs Thakur College Of Science And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1578 Bom

                                                                                       wp.3408.2017 (Colabawalla).10.4.2017.doc

dik
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                        WRIT PETITION NO. 3408 OF 2017
                                                   WITH
                                      CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 731 OF 2017
                                                    IN
                                        WRIT PETITION NO.3408 OF 2017

      Parakh Jaiprakash Shahal                                                                        ]
      Age about 20 years, Occup:- Student                                                             ]
      Residing at Flat No.601, Sapphire Heights                                                       ]
      Near Centrium Mall, Lokhandwala Township                                                        ]
      Akruli Road, Kandivali East, Mumbai 400 101                                                     ]
      Maharashtra                                                                                     ]           ...Petitioner

                                            vs

      1.       Thakur College of Science and                                                          ]
               Commerce,                                                                              ]
               Shyamnarayan Thakur Marg, Thakur                                                       ]
               Village, Kandivali East Mumbai 400 202                                                 ]
               Maharashtra                                                                            ]

      2        University of Mumbai                                                                   ]
               through its Registrar at Fort, Behind                                                  ]
               Mumbai High Court, Churchgate, Mumbai                                                  ]
               3 P.J. Ramchandani Marg, Opposite Radio                                                ]
               400 020.                                                                               ]

      3        State of Maharashtra,                                                                  ]           ...Respondents.

                                                                            .....

      Ms Purvi Shah, for the Petitioner.
      Mr. V.N.Sagare, AGP for Respondent No.3.
      Mr Arun Panickar for Respondent No.1.
                                         .....

                                                                  CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR &
                                                                          B.P.COLABAWALLA, JJ.

10 th APRIL, 2017.

Pg 1 of 8

wp.3408.2017 (Colabawalla).10.4.2017.doc

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.P.Colabawalla J) :

1 We must mention that only the Civil Application

was on board today. However, by consent of parties, we

have taken up the Writ Petition itself and heard the parties

for admission.

2 By this Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks writ of certiorari

for quashing the circulars dated 4th October, 2016 and 20th

August, 2014 issued by Respondent No.2 (University of

Mumbai).

3 The brief facts giving rise to the present Writ

Petition are as under:-

(a) The Petitioner has completed his schooling from Neerja Modi School Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. This institution is affiliated to the International Baccalaureate Organization Geneva, Switzerland (for short "IB"). The Petitioner has accordingly, obtained a Character Certificate, Official Transcript, and a Transfer Certificate along with a Migration

Pg 2 of 8

wp.3408.2017 (Colabawalla).10.4.2017.doc

Certificate certifying that the Petitioner was their student and he was appearing as a candidate for the IB Diploma program. Since the results of the IB Diploma are declared late in comparison to the admissions granted by the normal colleges that are affiliated to the Mumbai University, the Petitioner received from his school a predictive score to secure admission in the State of Maharashtra for admission to Bachelor of Management Studies (B.M.S.). Accordingly, the Petitioner made an application to Respondent No.1 - College as they were accredited and recognized by Respondent No.2 for the said degree course. Accordingly, Respondent No.2 - University, by its letter dated 11th June, 2014 informed the Petitioner that the Petitioner has been prima facie considered eligible for admission to the first year B.M.S. Degree course for the academic year 2014-15 subject to the condition that he must pass the IB Diploma as shown in the predicted mark-sheet. The Petitioner was, therefore, requested to contact the concerned college which is affiliated to Respondent No.2 for obtaining provisional statement of eligibility as well as admission. Thereafter, a circular dated 20th August, 2014 was issued by Respondent No.2 wherein it was resolved that all students registered for the IB Diploma program with core requirements

Pg 3 of 8

wp.3408.2017 (Colabawalla).10.4.2017.doc

and awarded a minimum of 24 points would be considered for determining the eligibility. In other words, if a student secured less than 24 points, he/she would not be considered to be eligible.

(b) Be that as it may, on the basis of the predictive scores that were submitted by the Petitioner, Respondent No.1 - College granted admission to the Petitioner on the payment of Rs.22,975/-. It is the case of the Petitioner that this admission was not a provisional one, but was in fact an un-provisional admission. Thereafter, the Petitioner received his final IB Diploma Certificate on 1st August, 2014 which was then submitted to Respondent No.1. It is the case of the Petitioner that he has appeared for four consecutive semesters for the said course from the year 2014-15 and 2015-16 and has been issued mark-sheets for each semester wherein he has secured good grades.

(c) It is in these circumstances that the Petitioner was surprised to note that by a letter dated 4th October, 2016 Respondent No.2 informed the Principal of Respondent No.1 - College that as per the documents submitted by the it on 3rd October, 2016 and after verifying the same, the Petitioner was not eligible for admission to the said degree course. The

Pg 4 of 8

wp.3408.2017 (Colabawalla).10.4.2017.doc

College, therefore, was directed to inform the Petitioner accordingly. It is in these circumstances that the Petitioner is before us in our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the cancellation of his admission as well as the circular dated 20th August, 2014.

4. In this factual backdrop, Ms Purvi Shah appearing on

behalf of the Petitioner contended that the circulars dated 20th

August, 2014 as well as 4th October, 2016, for cancellation of

admission of the Petitioner is misconceived, bad-in-law and

untenable. She submitted that if Respondent No.1 had not

given confirmed admission to him, he would have sat for IB

Diploma examinations once again to get the relevant scores

which in all takes six months without wasting his crucial two

years of educational life. She submitted that if at this juncture,

the Petitioner was declared in-eligible for the said course it will

have impact on his entire career as he will be not considered

for any prospective employment by the employers as he will be

considered as unfit due to the inadvertent mistake of

Respondent Nos.1 and 2. She submitted that the admission of

the Petitioner was not provisional as can be seen from the

Pg 5 of 8

wp.3408.2017 (Colabawalla).10.4.2017.doc

receipt that has been issued by first Respondent No.1 - College

whilst accepting his fees. She ,therefore, submitted that the

cancellation of the Petitioner's admission is wholly untenable

in law and ought to be set aside and the Petitioner be allowed

to appear for the last year B.M.S. exams and thereafter

continue the course.

5 We have perused the papers and proceedings in the

Writ Petition as well as the annexures thereto. On carefully

going through the documents that have been annexed to the

Petition, we are unable to agree with the submissions of Ms

Shah. It is not in dispute that in the final marksheet of the

IB Diploma program, the Petitioner secured only 15 points.

This is clear from page 40 of the paper-book. Before this

result was declared, the University of Mumbai had granted

permission to the Petitioner to seek an admission in the first

year B.M.S. Course on the condition that he must have fully

passed in the IB Diploma as shown in the predictive mark-

sheet. This itself would go to show that the admission

secured by the Petitioner was a provisional one and/or

conditional. We, therefore, find no merit in the argument of

Pg 6 of 8

wp.3408.2017 (Colabawalla).10.4.2017.doc

Ms Shah that the admission secured by the Petitioner was

complete and/or non-provisional, and therefore, could not be

cancelled. What is pertinent to note is that the circular

dated 20th August, 2014 categorically states that the student

who is passing out from the IB Diploma program, has to

secure a minimum of 24 points to be considered eligible for

admission to any college affiliated with 2 nd Respondent

University. Admittedly, the Petitioner has not secured the

minimum required 24 points, but has secured only 15

points, as can be seen from the mark-sheet issued on 1 st

August, 2014. We, therefore, find that the grievance made

by the Petitioner in this Writ Petition is wholly mis-

conceived. The Petitioner has not secured the required

marks, to be eligible for the B.M.S. Course, and therefore, we

find nothing wrong in his admission being cancelled.

6 Though the said circular dated 20th August, 2014

has been impugned in this Writ Petition, we find absolutely

no ground in the Writ Petition for impugning the said

circular. The University has laid down certain minimum

criteria for admitting a student that comes from an I.B.

Pg 7 of 8

wp.3408.2017 (Colabawalla).10.4.2017.doc

Diploma, and wants admission to any college affiliated to the

University of India. On going through the said circular, we

do not find that it is, in any way, perverse and/or contrary to

law, requiring our interference in writ jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In fact, when the

matter was argued by Ms Shah, she fairly did not even

canvass any argument impugning the said circular dated

20th August, 2014.

7 In view of the foregoing discussions, we find no

merit in this Writ Petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we

leave the parties to bear their own costs. In view of disposal

of the Writ Petition, nothing survives in the Civil Application

and the same is disposed of accordingly.

( B.P.COLABAWALLA J. ) ( SHANTANU S. KEMKAR J.)

Pg 8 of 8