Bombay High Court
Kanak Sanjay Fatwani vs The Union Of India And Others on 8 October, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, R. N. Laddha
1039WP5504.2021
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5504 OF 2021
Kanak Sanjay Fatwani ..Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India & Others ..Respondents
.....
Mr Mahesh K Bhosale, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr A.G. Talhar, ASGI for Respondent Nos.1 and 4
Mr S.B. Pulkundwar, AGP for respondent - State
Mr M.D. Narwadkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3
Mr P.S. Gaikwad & Mr P.D. Meghe, Advocate for Respondent No.5
Mr K.C. Sant, Advocate for Respondent No.6
.....
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA
AND
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATE : OCTOBER 08, 2021
PER COURT : -
1. The petitioner assails the communication dated
26-06-2020 issued by respondent no. 2 and communication
dated 29-01-2021 issued by respondent no. 6, thereby not
approving the admission of the petitioner.
2. Mr. Mahesh Bhosale, the learned Advocate for the
petitioner, submits that the petitioner had applied for the
professional course under Maharashtra University of Health
Gajanan
1039WP5504.2021
Sciences from EWS category. The petitioner possesses the
necessary certificate of EWS category. The learned Advocate
submits that the petitioner was allotted respondent no. 5 -
College by respondent no. 4. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner
took admission and now after completing one year the
respondents are contending that the petitioner does not possess
the required eligibility to be admitted from all India quota. In
fact, the petitioner had applied from EWS category and from EWS
category the minimum marks required are 40% and the
petitioner possesses 48.67% of marks in 12th standard and no
fault can be attributed to the petitioner.
3. Mr. M. D. Narwadkar, learned Advocate for
respondent nos. 2 and 3, submits that the petitioner had applied
from State quota as well as all India quota. In all India quota,
15% seats are reserved. In those 15% seats, there is no
consideration of EWS category. The petitioner was provisionally
allotted respondent no. 5 - College from all India quota. In fact,
the petitioner ought to possess minimum 50% marks in 12 th
standard, which the petitioner does not possess. The petitioner
was ineligible to be admitted from all India quota.
4. We have also heard Mr. A. G. Talhar, learned ASGI
Gajanan
1039WP5504.2021
for respondents no. 1 and 4.
5. Mr. Sant, learned Advocate for respondent no. 6,
submits that respondent no. 6 issued the communication dated
29-01-2021 as the petitioner does not possess the minimum
eligibility required.
6. We have considered the submissions.
7. The petitioner had filled in the application form, which
is at page no. 11, contending that he belongs to the Economically
Weaker Section (EWS) and that the petitioner claimed
reservation of EWS.
8. The petitioner possesses 48.67% marks in the 12 th
standard in PCB group. The petitioner is issued with the
provisional allotment letter in round-I on 03-07-2019, whereby
the petitioner is allotted respondent no. 5 - College. Pursuant to
the provisional allotment letter, the petitioner was admitted in
respondent no. 5 - College. The provisional allotment letter
states that the allotted quota is all India quota. The petitioner
thereafter completed first year. Upon completion of first year,
the communication is issued by the respondent no. 3 that the
Gajanan
1039WP5504.2021
admission of the petitioner cannot be approved as the petitioner
possesses only 48.67% marks in PCB group and does not possess
minimum 50% marks.
9. If the petitioner is considered from EWS, the
petitioner possesses the minimum eligibility. However, from all
India quota, the petitioner does not possess the minimum
eligibility required.
10. It appears that each and every party to the petition
i.e. the petitioner, the CET cell, respondent no. 4, all are at a
mistake of a matter of fact. The petitioner's application suggest
that the petitioner had claimed the benefit of EWS. The
provisional allotment letter shows that the petitioner is allotted
respondent no. 5 - College from all India quota and the petitioner
was admitted. After one year the communication is made that
the admission of the petitioner cannot be approved.
11. The petitioner has now completed two years. It
would be too late now to cancel the admission of the petitioner.
Reliance can be placed on the judgment in the case of Shri
Krishnan Versus The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra
reported in (1976) 1 SCC 311.
Gajanan
1039WP5504.2021
12. Considering the fact that the petitioner has completed
two years of his education and further that the petitioner had
applied from EWS category and the respondent no.4 allotted
respondent no. 5 - College to the petitioner, the petitioner is not
guilty of suppression of any fact and that the petitioner has
joined the college which was allotted to him as per the allotment
letter issued by respondent no. 4. We exercise our writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
protect the admission of the petitioner.
13. In light of all the aforesaid facts, the impugned
communications dated 26-06-2020 issued by respondent no. 2
and dated 29-01-2021 issued by respondent no. 6, are set aside.
In case there is no any other impediment, then the admission of
the petitioner be approved.
14. Writ Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
No costs.
[ R. N. LADDHA ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA ]
JUDGE JUDGE
Gajanan
