Deepak Agrawal vs University Of Mumbai And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 1979 Bom

                                                                            WP3298.17.doc




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       WRIT PETITION NO.3298 OF 2017


Deepak Agrawal                                       ... Petitioner
     v/s
University of Mumbai and another                     ... Respondents


Mr Sunny Shah with Ms Nishita Mohanty i/b Mr K.S. Garg for
Petitioner.
Mr Rui A. Rodriques for Respondent No.1.
Mr M. Bohra for Respondent No.2.
Mr C.P. Yadav, AGP for Respondent State.


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

Reserved on : APRIL 19, 2017 Pronounced on : APRIL 25, 2017 Prod.Board dtd.18.04.2017 Sr.No.517.

JUDGMENT [ PER B. P. COLABAWALLA J. ]:-

1. Though this matter was on our production board, by

consent of parties we have heard it for admission.

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

Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus or any

other appropriate writ, order or direction against the Respondents to

VRD 1/12

WP3298.17.doc

confirm the Petitioner's admission in the third and final year of the

Three Year Degree Course as a law student with Respondent No.2 -

College for the academic year 2016-2017.

3. After the Petition was filed, an amendment was sought to

be made pursuant to an order passed on 10th April, 2017. Now, the

Petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate

writ, order or direction declaring Respondent No.1's letter / order

dated 3rd April, 2017 as null and void. By virtue of this letter (dated

3rd April, 2017), Respondent No.1 - University has inter alia

informed the Principal of Respondent No.2 - College that the

admission and appearance of the Petitioner in Semester V of LL.B.

be treated as null and void as per the VCD and Regulation No.4469.

4. The brief facts giving rise to the present controversy are

that the Petitioner is enrolled as a law student in the three year

course with Respondent No.2 - College. Respondent No.2 is affiliated

with Respondent No.1 - University. The Petitioner claims that he

has successfully obtained his masters (M.Com.) Degree from Agra

University.

5. In the year 2014, the Petitioner enrolled as a law student

VRD 2/12

WP3298.17.doc

in the three year degree course with Respondent No.2. In the first

year (Semesters I and II), the Petitioner appeared for the

examination of the aforesaid two semesters in December 2014 and

April 2015 respectively. The Petitioner successfully passed all the

subjects of Semester I on 23rd January, 2015. As far as Semester II

is concerned, except for one subject ('Law of Crimes'), the Petitioner

passed all the subjects of Semester II.

6. In the second year of the three year degree course (i.e.

Semesters III and IV) the Petitioner appeared for the examination in

November 2015 and April 2016 respectively. In Semester III, the

Petitioner failed in the subjects 'Administrative Law' as well as the

'The Transfer of Property Act and Easements Act'. As far as

Semester IV was concerned, the Petitioner has passed all the

subjects. In the second year of the course, the Petitioner also

appeared for the examination of 'Law of Crimes' (during Semester III

and IV) but failed both times. The Petitioner then applied for

revaluation of the results for 'Law of Crimes' which he gave in the

IVth Semester.

7. At the time of seeking admission in the Third Year of the

Course (i.e. Semesters V and VI), in view of the revaluation pending

VRD 3/12

WP3298.17.doc

in respect of the subject 'Law of Crimes', the Petitioner was granted

provisional admission to the Third Year of the Course. In November

2016, the Petitioner was permitted to give the examination for

Semester V and also for the subject of 'Law of Crimes'. In the said

examination, the Petitioner passed the subject of 'Law of Crimes'

and thus successfully passed Semester II of the Course while the

Petitioner was in Semester V. Thus, according to the Petitioner, as

on date, he has successfully passed all the subjects of Semester I to

IV and except for one subject, namely, 'Public Interest Litigation and

Human Rights', the Petitioner has passed all subjects of Semester V.

It is therefore the case of the Petitioner that he is eligible for

admission to the Third Year of the Course and further eligible to give

the examination of Semester VI.

8. It is in these circumstances that the Petitioner, after

successfully clearing all the subjects of Semesters I to IV,

approached the Respondents to confirm his admission to the Third

and Final Year of the Course and also submit examination forms for

Semester VI. The Petitioner further sought to apply for revaluation

of the result that was declared in the subject 'Public Interest

Litigation and Human Rights'. However, the Petitioner was denied

the same on the ground that the Petitioner was not entitled to sit for

VRD 4/12

WP3298.17.doc

the examination for Semester V itself as the Petitioner had not

passed the subject 'Law of Crimes' in the revaluation. In other

words, the petitioner was told to reappear for all the examinations of

Semester V. It is being aggrieved by this action of the Respondents

that the Petitioner is before us in our writ jurisdiction seeking a

direction against the Respondents to confirm the Petitioner's

admission in the Third and Final Year of the Course for the academic

year 2016-2017 as well as for a declaration that the Respondent

No.1's letter / order dated 3rd April, 2017 be declared as null and

void.

9. In this factual backdrop, Mr Shah, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the action of the

Respondents was wholly illegal and untenable in law. Mr Shah

submitted that the Petitioner has today completed and cleared all

the subjects in Semesters I to IV. He further submitted that even as

far as Semester V is concerned, he has passed all the subjects with

the exception of one namely, 'Public Interest Litigation and Human

Rights'. This being the factual position, Mr Shah submitted that it

was highly unfair for the Respondents to insist that the Petitioner

does not qualify to be admitted to the Third Year of the Course and

that he would have to reappear for Semester V examination all over

VRD 5/12

WP3298.17.doc

again. In these circumstances, Mr Shah submitted that the

Respondents be directed to confirm the Petitioner's admission in the

Third and Final Year of the Course for the academic year 2016-2017;

be permitted to submit the examination form for Semester VI of the

Course; and be allowed to appear for the examination for Semester

VI.

10. On the other hand, Mr Rodriques, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1, submitted that the

Petitioner was not entitled to appear for the Semester V examination

and the result of the same was declared null and void because the

Petitioner had not cleared all the subjects of Semesters I to IV viz.

'Law of Crimes'. He submitted that before the Petitioner could get

admission in the Third Year (Semester V) or give the examination

thereof, it was mandatory for the Petitioner to clear all the subjects

of the First Year viz. (Semesters I and II). In the facts of the present

case, he submitted that admittedly this was not done as the

Petitioner had failed to clear the subject 'Law of Crimes' (subject in

Semester II) either in Semester II or Semester III or even in

Semester IV. It was only because the Petitioner had submitted his

'Law of Crimes' paper for revaluation that he was granted

provisional admission into Semester V as per the Rules framed in

VRD 6/12

WP3298.17.doc

that regard. Not having cleared the subject, as per the Rules,

Respondent No.1 was fully justified in declaring the results of

Semester V of the Petitioner as null and void and asking him to

reappear for Semester V examinations all over again. He submitted

that there was nothing illegal or untenable about the decision taken

by the Respondent No.1 and hence no interference was called for by

us in our extraordinary, equitable and discretionary jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, he

submitted that the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and should be

dismissed with costs.

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at

length and have perused the papers and proceedings in the Writ

Petition. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner had failed in the

subject 'Law of Crimes' in Semester II. As per the rules, he was still

allowed to take admission into Semester III and in the examination

held in November 2015 he once again attempted and failed in subject

'Law of Crimes'. Alongwith this, the Petitioner had also failed in the

subjects 'Administrative Law' as well as 'The Transfer of Property

Act and the Easements Act' (in Semester III). Thereafter, in

Semester IV, the Petitioner passed in the subjects 'Administrative

Law' and 'The Transfer of Property Act and the Easements Act' but

VRD 7/12

WP3298.17.doc

failed in the subject 'Law of Crimes'. As far as the other subjects of

Semester IV are concerned, it is the case of the Petitioner that he

cleared all the subjects.

12. It is therefore clear that the subject 'Law of Crimes', and

which was the subject in Semester II (in the First Year Course), had

not been cleared by the Petitioner even at the end of the Semester IV

(by the end of Second Year Course). This being the position, under

normal circumstances, the Petitioner could not be given admission in

Semesters V and VI (the Third Year of the Course). This is clear

from Rule 4469 of the Ordinances and Regulations and Syllabus for

the 3 years and 5 years Law Degree Course by Semester System.

Rule 4469 reads thus :-

"Fifth Sem ester of 3 years LL.B. Course

R.4469: A Candidate for being eligible for adm ission to Fifth Sem ester of 3 years LL.B. Course -

m ust have passed in all the Papers of First and Second Sem esters, and m ust have either passed in the Third and Fourth Sem esters or m ust have got exem ption in at least six Papers (excluding Practical Training Paper) of the Third and Fourth Sem esters."

13. As this rule clearly stipulates, a student has to clear all

papers of Semester I and II and must have either passed Semesters

VRD 8/12

WP3298.17.doc

III and IV or must get an exemption in at least six papers of

Semesters III and IV, before he can get admission in the Vth

Semester.

14. Thereafter, the University framed Rules and Procedure

for providing the Photo / Xerox copies of assessed answer-book/s to

the examinee and Process of Revaluation of the Answer-book/s of the

examinee who apply for the revaluations. Part II of these Rules deal

with the procedure for revaluation of answer-books. Rule 45 inter

alia provides that pending the process of revaluation, and subject to

the availability of the seats in the college, the student may be

admitted to the next higher class to which he could have been

admitted as if he / she had passed in the said examination or had

been granted A.T.K.T. for admission to the next class in the original

examination as per the rules applicable for the stream and faculty of

his / her education, as per certain norms that were to be followed as

set out in the said Rule. This Rule categorically states that such

admission shall be provisional, and automatically stands cancelled

on receipt of the result of revaluation process, if the student is not

declared passed in the requisite number of the subjects on

revaluation which would entitle him / her to take admission in the

next higher class. For the sake of convenience, Rule 45 is

VRD 9/12

WP3298.17.doc

reproduced hereunder and reads thus :-

"45. Pending the process of revaluation, and subject to the availability of the seats in the college, the student may be admitted to the next higher class to which he could have been admitted if he / she had passed in the said examination or had been granted A.T.K.T. for admission to the next class in the original examination as per the rules applicable for the stream and faculty of his education, as per the following norms :-

(i) The student may be admitted to the next higher class to which he could have been admitted if he / she had passed in the said examination or had been granted A.T.K.T. for admission to the next class in the original examination as per the rules applicable for the stream and faculty of his / her education, if he / she had originally obtained required passing marks in the papers in which he / she had applied for revaluation,

(ii) The college shall be entitled to charge fees of Rs.500/- at the time of granting admission to such students to the next class before declaration of the result of the revaluation,

(iii) such admission shall be provisional, and automatically stands cancelled on receipt of the result of revaluation process, if the student is not declared passed in the requisite number of the subjects on revaluation which would entitle him / her to take admission in the next higher class, and in such case the fees originally collected by the college or any part of the same shall not be refunded."

15. On a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions viz. Rule

4469 of the Ordinances and Regulations and Syllabus for the 3 Years

and 5 Years Law Degree Course by Semester System as well as Rule

45 of the Rules and Procedure for providing the Photo / Xerox copies

of assessed answer-book/s to the examinee and Process of

VRD 10/12

WP3298.17.doc

Revaluation of the Answer-book/s of the examinee who apply for the

revaluations, what is clear is that ordinarily the Petitioner could not

have taken admission into Semester V without clearing all subjects

in Semesters I and II. In the facts of the present case, admittedly the

Petitioner at the time of taking admission into Semester V had not

cleared the subject 'Law of Crimes' in Semester II. Despite two other

attempts in Semesters III and IV, the Petitioner had not cleared the

said subject. Ordinarily, if Rule 45 was not there, the Petitioner could

not have taken admission into the Semester V at all. However, Rule

45 carved out an exception that where a student had applied for

revaluation of the subject in which he had failed, then, he was to be

granted provisional admission, and it would stand automatically

cancelled if he did not pass in the revaluation.

16. In the facts of the present case, admittedly, the Petitioner

gave the examination for the 'Law of Crimes' in Semester IV and did

not clear the same. Thereafter, he applied for revaluation wherein

he failed again. This being the case, the provisional admission that

was given to him in Semester V, as per Rule 45, automatically stood

cancelled. This being the case, we find that Respondent No.1 -

University was fully justified in issuing the impugned

communication dated 3rd April, 2017 under which the University

VRD 11/12

WP3298.17.doc

informed the Principal of Respondent No.2 - College tht since the

Petitioner had failed to clear his Semester II, his admission and

appearance in Semester V be treated as null and void as per VCD and

Regulation No.4469. We find that this decision of the University

cannot be faulted on any ground as it is strictly as per the Rules and

Regulations reproduced by us earlier. It makes little difference that

the Petitioner has now appeared and passed in the subject 'Law of

Crimes'. At the time when he took admission in Semester V,

admittedly, the Petitioner had not cleared 'Law of Crimes' and

neither was he successful when the revaluation process was done.

In these circumstances, we fully agree with Mr Rodriques, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the University, that the action taken

by the University in issuing the impugned communication dated 3rd

April, 2017 is fully justified and cannot be faulted.

17. In view of the foregoing discussion, 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.

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




VRD                                                                            12/12