Bombay High Court
Ms. Rachana Raghunath Karnik And ... vs University Of Mumbai And Ors on 3 July, 2021
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, C.V. Bhadang
9-wpst-10944-21 & grp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 10944 OF 2021
Ms. Rachana Raghunath Karnik & Anr. ...Petitioners
V/s.
University of Mumbai and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1989 OF 2021
Ms. Vijayta Sunil Shinde ...Petitioner
V/s.
University of Mumbai and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2021
Mr. Surendra Anil Pawar ...Petitioner
V/s.
University of Mumbai ...Respondent
----
Mr. Nikhil Wadekar a/w. Mr. Pradip M. Zende for the Petitioner
in WP No.1989/2021.
Mr. Vijay Pradhan for the Petitioner in WP No.1995/2021.
Mr. Dr. Uday Warunjikar a/w. Mr. Sumit Kate for the Petitioners
in WPST No.10944/2021.
Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni for the Respondent in all Petitions.
Mr. Harjotsingh K. Alang, the Respondent No.6 in person in
WPST No.10944/2021 present.
----
Mamta Kale page 1 of 8
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 02:52:51 :::
9-wpst-10944-21 & grp
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND
C. V. BHADANG, JJ.
DATE : 3 JULY 2021
(Through Video Conferencing)
JUDGMENT (PER C.V.BHADANG, J.)
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned
Counsel for the Respondents waive service. Heard finally by
consent of parties.
2. These Petitions involve challenge to the sixth round of
online spot admission process to the LL.M Degree Course, held
on 20 May 2021 conducted by the Respondent-University. As
such they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The Petitioners belong to the Open General Category and
are desirous of seeking admission to the LL.M Degree Course in
Law of Intellectual Property and Information Technology (Group
III). There are six groups in which the LL.M. Course is offered
by the Respondent-University, each having an intake capacity of
100 seats. It is undisputed that the Petitioners could not secure
admission in the first five rounds. It is further undisputed that
after the five rounds, there were in all 45 seats which were vacant.
The Respondent-University had notified the vacancy position in
Mamta Kale page 2 of 8
9-wpst-10944-21 & grp
each of the groups including the Reserved Category seats. In so
far as the Open General Category in Group-III is concerned,
there were three seats available against which the Respondent
Nos.5 to 7 (Writ Petition (St) No.10944/2021) have been
granted admission, in the sixth round.
4. According to the Petitioners, there have been several
irregularities in so far as the conduction of the sixth round of
online admission process for the LL.M. Degree Course is
concerned. The Petitioners are seeking quashing of the
admission process and merit list as declared on 20 May 2021 and
conduction of the fresh round of the admission process and are
also seeking admission in the place of the Respondent-Students.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. We
have also heard Mr. Harjotsingh Alang, the Respondent No.6 in
person. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the
parties, we have gone through the record. The parties have also
filed the synopsis of their submissions.
6. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners
that as per the admission notice, a student was required to apply
only for one group and applications for multiple groups were not
permitted. It is contended that students who have given multiple
options have been considered which was not permissible. It is
Mamta Kale page 3 of 8
9-wpst-10944-21 & grp
submitted that the students who had secured admission in the
first five rounds were not eligible for the sixth round and some of
the students who have secured admission in the first five rounds,
were also considered in the sixth round. According to the
Petitioners, there are eleven such students whose candidature has
been considered in the sixth round.
7. It is submitted that spot admission process pre-supposses
that the aspirant has to remain present on the spot, in the present
case, virtually through the Google Meet App. However, the
concerned Authorities were seen calling up the individual
students asking them to Login in the spot admission process.
The learned Counsel pointed out that even the University has
accepted that there were certain "short listed candidates" who
were individually called presumably on account of certain
technical difficulties faced by the students while Logging in. It is
submitted that the students were also allowed to change their
group which is not permissible and even there were change of
category effected in the revised merit list. It is contended that the
revised merit list (on page No.37 of Writ Petition (St)
No.10944/2021) is not the same merit list which is at page 63. It
is contended that, had the Petitioners been put to notice, that
candidature of even those students applying for multiple groups
would be considered, the Petitioners would have applied for
multiple groups. It is contended that thus there were improper
Mamta Kale page 4 of 8
9-wpst-10944-21 & grp
and inadequate disclosures made by the Respondent-University
while inviting applications for the online spot admission process
vide notice dated 15 May 2021. It is submitted that the notice
dated 15 May 2021 is arbitrary and has resulted into less
meritorious students than the Petitioners being admitted to the
LL.M Degree Course.
8. The learned Counsel for the Respondent-University
submitted that three students namely Ms. Arohi Thatte, Ms.
Chetna Agarwal, Mr. Harjot Singh Alang have secured 84 marks
in the Common Entrance Test (CET) and they were admitted
against three Open General seats available in Group-III. It is
submitted that all these students are more meritorious than the
Petitioners who had secured lesser marks in the CET. It is thus
submitted that merit has not been compromised in giving
admission as claimed. It is submitted that the sixth round was
conducted only in order to ensure that the 45 seats which were
vacant could be filled in by meritorious students and some of the
students who were facing technical difficulties while logging in
the Google Meet were accordingly informed. It is submitted that
none of the aforesaid students who have been admitted in Open
General Category in Group-III had applied for multiple groups
nor any of them had secured admission in the first five rounds.
Thus, it is submitted that the contention of the Petitioners in so
far as students applying for multiple groups and those students
Mamta Kale page 5 of 8
9-wpst-10944-21 & grp
who had secured admission in the first five rounds being again
considered in the sixth round, cannot be accepted. It is
submitted that in so far as the students adjusted against reserved
category is concerned, the vertical reservation has not been
compromised in any manner and only in respect of these vacant
seats, students from other reserved categories (from the
horizontal reservation) such as EWS, Orphans and Divyang were
admitted purely based on permissible interchangeability and
merits.
9. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and the
submissions made.
10. At the outset, it is necessary to note that we propose to
examine the challenge qua the claim of the Petitioners, namely in
so far as the admission granted to the Respondent-students from
the Open General Category in Group-III is concerned, in as
much as the Petitioners had applied for the said group and could
be considered for admission accordingly. In our view, it is not
possible to enlarge the scope of the Petitions in the nature of a
PIL, to examine the entire admission process. Even otherwise the
entire admission process in the sixth round, cannot be examined
as that would affect 45 students, admitted in the said round, none
of whom, except Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 (Writ Petition No.
10944 of 2021) are before us. In the other two Petitions, there
Mamta Kale page 6 of 8
9-wpst-10944-21 & grp
are no private Respondents. Thus, we propose to confine to the
claim of the Petitioners for admission in Open General Category
seat in Group-III in the sixth round of admission process.
11. As noticed earlier, all the Petitioners belong to Open
General Category. The Petitioners had failed to secure admission
in the first five rounds. It is undisputed that the Petitioners had
applied only for the Law of Intellectual Property and Information
Technology (Group-III). The marks secured by the Petitioners
in the CET are - Ms. Rachana Karnik - 82/100, Ms. Vijayta
Shinde - 78/100, Mr. Saini - 76/100 and Mr. Surendra Pawar -
74/100. It is undisputed that there were three vacant seats at the
end of the fifth round in the Open General Category in Group-
III in which Ms. Arohi Thatte, Ms. Chetna Agarwal, Mr. Harjot
Singh Alang have been admitted and all of them have secured 84
marks in the CET. None of these candidates had applied for
multiple groups. None of them belong to the reserved category.
These three students were virtually present in the Google Meet
held on 20 May 2021. Thus in our view the contention that
there is an irregularity in admission process or that the students
less meritorious than the Petitioners have been admitted in
breach of the terms of the admission notice dated 15 May 2021
cannot be accepted.
12. It was contended on behalf of Petitioners in Writ Petition
Mamta Kale page 7 of 8
9-wpst-10944-21 & grp
(ST) No.10944/2021 that the fifth round was conducted till 6
April 2021 and till that time no lectures were conducted. It was
contended that the University has declared the examination for
those students admitted in the first five rounds from 1 June 2021
which is contrary to the teaching standards and would
compromise the quality of education. We are afraid the said
contention cannot be considered at the instance of the Petitioners
in as much as the Petitions involve challenge to the sixth round.
Thus, the said contention cannot be accepted. In the result, the
Petitions are without any merit and are accordingly dismissed.
(C. V. BHADANG, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
Mamta Kale page 8 of 8
