Bombay High Court
Samidha Umesh Rathi And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 5 October, 2017
Bench: R.M. Borde
(Judgment) (1) W.P. No. 06350 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
Writ Petition No. 06350 of 2017
District : Aurangabad
1. Miss. Samidha d/o. Umesh Rathi,
Age : Major,
Occupation : Student,
R/o. 4, 'Tulsi' Shriram Colony,
Samarth Nagar, Aurangabad.
2. Miss. Priyanka d/o. Ramesh
Tambatkar,
Age : Major,
Occupation : Student,
R/o. C-2/102, N-74, CIDCO,
Aurangabad.
3. Miss. Archana d/o. Shriram
Pazade,
Age : Major,
Occupation : Student,
R/o. Plot no.5, Pandit Colony,
Old Bhavsingpura, Aurangabad.
4. Miss. Sayli d/o. Anil Chaudhari,
Through her mother
Bharti A. Chaudhari,
Age : Major,
Occupation : Student,
R/o. At Post Sayadrinagar,
N-5, House no.773, CIDCO,
Aurangabad.
5. Miss. Aarti d/o. Arjun Gunjal,
Age : Major,
Occupation : Student,
R/o. At Post : Bolthan,
Taluka Nandgaon,
District Nashik.
6. Miss. Vaishnavi d/o. Govind
Mandhane,
Age : Major,
Occupation : Student,
::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:03:01 :::
(Judgment) (2) W.P. No. 06350 of 2017
R/o. Anubhuti Apartment,
Bansilal Nagar, Aurangabad.
7. Miss. Akanksha d/o. Vishnukumar
Mishra,
Age : Major,
Occupation : Student,
R/o. Plot no.15,
Behind New Mondha,
Suryawadi, Aurangabad.
8. Miss. Sachi d/o. Ravindra
Deshmukh,
Age : Major,
Occupation : Student,
R/o. Plot no.23,
'Swapna Shilp',
Renuka Housing Society,
Pahadsingpura,
Guruganeshnagar,
Aurangabad.
9. Miss. Shweta d/o. Deelip
Gaikwad,
Age : Major,
Occupation : Student,
R/o. Vitthal Nagar,
Phulambri,
District Aurangabad.
10. Miss. Namrata d/o. Rajesh
Ughade,
Age : Major,
Occupation : Student,
R/o. Hanuman Tekdi,
D.Ed. College,
New Pahadsing Pura,
Aurangabad. .. Petitioners.
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Higher & Technical Education
Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Vice Chancellor,
SNDT Women's University,
::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:03:01 :::
(Judgment) (3) W.P. No. 06350 of 2017
1, Nathibai Thackersey Road,
Mumbai.
3. Bhagwan Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal,
Through its President &
Secretary,
Dr. Y.S. Khedkar Marg,
N-6, CIDCO, Aurangabad.
4. Beau Monde College of
Home Science,
Through its Principal
BSPM Campus,
Dr. Y.S. Khedkar Marg,
N-6, CIDCO, Aurangabad. .. Respondents.
...........
Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya, Advocate, for petitioners.
Mr. S.P. Sonpawale, Asst. Government Pleader, for
respondent no.01.
Smt. V.A. Jadhav, Advocate, for respondent no.02.
Mr. S.G. Rudrawar, Advocate, for respondents
no.03 and 04.
...........
CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.
Date of reserving
the judgment : 25th September, 2017
Date of pronouncing
the judgment : 05th October, 2017
JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.) :
01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By
consent, heard finally.
(Judgment) (4) W.P. No. 06350 of 2017
02. All the petitioners are taking education in
Bachelor degree course in B. Design course in
respondent No. 4 college. Petitioners have invoked
writ jurisdiction of this court under Art. 226 of
Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of
mandamus to declare the results of the petitioners for
the 1st year examination conducted for the academic
year 2015-2016 and for conduct of 4 th semester
examination. They have also prayed for the
compensation.
03. Petitioners were admitted by respondent No. 4
College for the four year degree course in design viz.
"B Design" in 2015-2016. The said course consists of 8
semesters. It was disclosed by respondent No. 4 while
admitting petitioners that the college is affiliated
to respondent No. 2 University. All the petitioners
have paid amount of Rs.65,000/- each towards fee of
the academic year 2015-2016 as per the advertisement
published by respondent No. 4. All the petitioners
have attended the classes regularly and submitted
their projects. Respondent No. 4 had issued
(Judgment) (5) W.P. No. 06350 of 2017
certificate for the completion of the project.
Respondent No. 4 has conducted 1 st and 2nd semester in
2015 and April 2016 respectively. However, respondent
No. 4 has not declared the results. It was informed
that due to some problem with University their result
of 1st year will be declared after 3rd semester.
Petitioners had believed in the words of respondent
No. 4. Petitioners took admission for the current
academic year 2016-2017 and attended the classes. The
examination of the 3rd semester were also conducted in
September 2016. Thereafter they had visited office of
the Principal many times for the declaration of their
1st year result; however, the authority had avoided to
give any reason. Petitioners came to know that
respondent No. 4 will not be conducting any
examination of 4th semester. It has been contended that
petitioners are from rural background and they are
from middle class. They have been kept in dark by the
respondents. They are unable to pursue their further
studies because of inaction on the part of
respondents. Hence, petitioners have filed this writ.
04. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed by Dr.
(Judgment) (6) W.P. No. 06350 of 2017
Rajeev Khedkar, Secretary of respondent No. 3. He has
stated that respondent No. 3 had forwarded application
to respondent University, for grant of extension of
affiliation of new faculty for the academic year 2013-
2014 on 5-10-2013. They had also paid amount of
Rs.50,000/- by demand draft. Respondent was running B.
Design course and initially on the basis of oral
communication by the respondent University, it was
told that a fresh application is required to be
submitted. It was informed on 25-3-2014 that expert
committee will examine the proposal. Amount in the
nature of fixed deposit and resolution/ undertaking
was forwarded as part of further procedure. Those
documents were sent to Government. Inspection was
done. Government resolution came to be passed on 30-8-
2014 to grant permission to open and establish said
course. Respondent thereafter made representation for
affiliation. The affiliation came to be granted vide
GR dt. 9-9-2016 to run the new faculty of "B. Design"
course from the academic year 2016-17. There is delay
for obtaining permission which was beyond the control
of respondent. Result of the students has been
declared in May 2017.
(Judgment) (7) W.P. No. 06350 of 2017
05. Affidavit-in-reply has also been filed by
Shri. S. N. Bharambhe, Registrar of respondent No. 2
on behalf of respondent No. 2. It has been contended
that respondent No. 4 had admitted the students before
the affiliation. Respondent College had not intimated
about the admission given to the students. The facts
have been brought to the knowledge of the University
only through the petition. Students ought not to have
been admitted in absence of affiliation prior to 2016.
Results of the petitioners cannot be declared for
examination of the academic year 2015-2016.
06. Heard learned counsel Shri. Lakhotiya for the
petitioners, learned AGP for respondent No. 1, learned
counsel Smt. V. A. Jadhav for respondent No. 2 and
Shri. S. G. Rudrawar for respondents No. 3 and 4. We
have gone through the documents produced on behalf of
parties with the help of learned counsel. Taking into
consideration the controversy involved, the matter is
decided to be taken up for final hearing with consent
of all the parties.
(Judgment) (8) W.P. No. 06350 of 2017
07. It has been argued on behalf of petitioners
that there is no dispute that the petitioners were
admitted to "B. Design" course by respondent No. 4
college run by respondent No. 3 in the year 2015-2016.
There was no affiliation to the course at that time.
However, respondents No. 3 and 4 gave impression about
the said affiliation and therefore, petitioners sought
admission. Examinations were also conducted by
respondent No. 4. But the petitioners have come to
know about the non-affiliation after the petition.
Respondent No. 4 has declared the result of the
petitioners of the 1st year in May 2017 showing that
the examinations were held in 2016-2017, when in fact
that was held in 2015-2016. An academic year of the
petitioners has been lost. Hence, they are entitled to
the reliefs claimed.
08. Per contra, it has been argued on behalf of
respondents No. 3 and 4 that every effort was made by
the respondents to get the affiliation. Application
was made in 2014 and letter of intent was given on 30-
8-2014. Thereafter, on the oral permission from
respondent No. 2 University, the admissions were given
(Judgment) (9) W.P. No. 06350 of 2017
in 2015. Examinations were conducted and petitioners
have appeared for the same. The results have been
declared.
had given admission to the petitioners for the "B.
Design" course in 2015. At the time of admission, it
was represented that the college is affiliated to
respondent No. 2 University. Petitioners have produced
documents in the form of syllabus, course details,
advertisement and receipts of fees, admit cards, and
certificates issued by respondents No. 3 and 4. These
documents clearly show that such representation was
made. Taking into consideration the representation
about affiliation, petitioners have paid tuition fees.
They have attended the college regularly and gave
examination. They have given examination for the 1 st,
2nd and 3rd semester. Till the 3rd semester, petitioners
were kept in dark about non-affiliation with
respondent No. 2 by respondent No. 3 and 4.
10. It is further to be noted that even the 1 st
year examination i.e. two semesters were conducted at
(Judgment) (10) W.P. No. 06350 of 2017
the college level by respondent no.4 in 2015-2016,
thereby impressing upon the petitioners that the
course is affiliated to respondent no.2 - University.
The question papers produced at pages no.78, 79, 81,
82 and 83 would show that even it was printed on the
question papers that the college is affiliated to
respondent no.2 - University.
11. Respondent no.3 and 4 have contended that
they had given application on 05-10-2013 for extending
affiliation to the new faculty to respondent no.2.
They had forwarded necessary amount along with the
said application. The said amount was accepted by
respondent no.2 - University and thereafter by letter
dated 25-03-2014, it was informed to respondent no.3
that the team of experts will visit the college in
order to see the facilities offered. There is no
dispute that the Committee had paid visit. In the
meantime, letter of intent was issued on 30-08-2014 by
the Government. However, the said notification
specifically states that unless final letter of
approval is obtained, the college shall not give
admissions. It also appears from the communications
(Judgment) (11) W.P. No. 06350 of 2017
from respondent no.3, dated 07-05-2015, 11-05-2015 and
30-06-2015 that the respondent no.3 and 4 were very
much aware that they cannot admit students for the
said course, unless there is final approval. The
final approval was not even accorded on 30-06-2015
and, therefore, respondents no.3 and 4 were not
justified in admitting the students i.e. petitioners
for the academic year 2015-16.
12. Thus, inspite of knowledge that the college
is not affiliated to respondent no.2 - University and
they were not permitted to admit the students, yet
respondent no.3 and 4 admitted the students i.e.
petitioners, accepted the tuition fees from each of
them and even conducted the course. This amounts to
playing with the future of the students. The final
approval for the said course has been accorded by the
Government by notification dated 09-09-2016.
13. The agony of the petitioners can be further
seen from the fact that after the petition was filed,
respondent no.4 has declared result of the petitioners
for the 1st year, contending that the examination was
(Judgment) (12) W.P. No. 06350 of 2017
held in 2016-17; when in fact, the said examination
was held in 2015-16. The said act on the part of
respondents no.3 and 4 is definitely required to be
deprecated and it appears to have caused wrongful loss
of the petitioners and wrongful gain to themselves.
Such act on the part of an educational institution
cannot be allowed to be sustained. A student takes
admission in a college after making every enquiry in
order to build his future. In this case also, the
petitioners had made necessary enquiry before taking
admission. They were represented by respondent no.3
and 4 that the course is affiliated to respondent no.2
- University. However, in fact, it was not the true
fact. Thereby there is loss of one academic year for
the petitioners. We would like to rely on the
observations of Apex Court in Sunil Oraon v/s. CBSE
reported in (2006) 13 SCC 673. It has been observed
that,
"Time and again, therefore, this Court has
deprecated the practice of educational
institutions admitting the students without
requisite recognition or affiliation. In
all such cases the usual plea is the career
of innocent children who have fallen in the
hands of the mischievous designated school
authorities. As the factual scenario
delineated against goes to show that the
(Judgment) (13) W.P. No. 06350 of 2017
school has shown scant regards to the
requirements for affiliation and rightly
highlighted by learned counsel for CBSE,
the infraction was of very serious nature".
14. Now, the petitioners have prayed that their
result for the 1st year be declared and 4th semester
examination should be conducted. However, it is to be
noted that when the course was not recognized for the
earlier period, such prayer cannot be granted. Now,
respondent no.4 has declared result of 1st year
examination of the petitioners and, therefore, taking
into consideration the fact that the affiliation has
been granted from the academic year 2016-17, the
petitioners will have to take admission and undergo
the course for the 2nd year in this academic year.
15. The loss that has been suffered by the
petitioners as a result of aforesaid acts of
respondents no.3 and 4, in our opinion, is irreparable
and cannot be compensated adequately. However, the
mental agony and the efforts that the petitioners
would be required to put again will have to be
compensated adequately. The petitioners are coming
from middle class families from rural areas. Some of
(Judgment) (14) W.P. No. 06350 of 2017
them are from villages far away from Aurangabad. They
would have made their arrangement for residence or
taken shelter in the hostel. An academic year of the
petitioners is thereby lost and respondent no.03 and
04 are responsible for the same. They should not go
scot free. In the decision of Prabhakar Vithal Gholve
v/s. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2016 SC
2292, Hon'ble Supreme Court has imposed costs of Rs.5
crores on Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS)
for admitting more students than quota. Though the
facts of the said case are different, yet it is
required to be considered while compensating
petitioners in this case. The facts giving rise to
present case are more grave than the said case.
16. Respondents no.03 and 04 had the knowledge
that unless they are given final approval for
affiliation, they were not permitted to admit the
students. Not only they gave admission, but conducted
classes as well as took examinations. Respondent
no.04 has issued incorrect mark-sheets just to save
itself or with ulterior motive. It is sheer act of
negligence on the part of college. Hence, stringent
(Judgment) (15) W.P. No. 06350 of 2017
action is required to be proposed so that none of the
colleges or educational institution should think of
playing with the future of the students. We,
therefore, propose to direct respondent no.01 and 02
to initiate appropriate action against respondents
no.03 and 04.
17. Hence, the following order :
Order
(a) The writ petition is partly allowed.
(b) Respondents no.3 and 4 i.e. educational
institution and college are directed to deposit
amount/ costs of Rs. 25,00,000/- [Rupees twenty five
lacs] in this Court within a period of six weeks from
the date of this order. After the deposit of the
said amount, amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- [Rupees two
lacs] be given to each petitioner as compensation.
Rest of the amount be credited to Government.
(c) Respondent No. 3 and 4 shall not recover the said
amount of costs of Rs.25,00,000/- in any manner from
any student or adjust against the fees or from
provision of facilities for students of any present
or subsequent batches.
(d) Respondent no.3 and 4 shall admit the
(Judgment) (16) W.P. No. 06350 of 2017
petitioners, if they desire, to the next academic
year, in view of the affiliation that has been
received from respondent No 2 University.
(e) Respondent no.01 and 02 are directed to initiate
appropriate action against respondent no.03 and 04
within a period of three months from the date of this
order for the aforesaid acts.
(f) Rule made absolute in the above terms.
( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi ) ( R.M. Borde )
JUDGE JUDGE
...........
puranik / WP6350.17
