Adarsh Omprakash Kurmi vs The State Of Maharashtra And 2 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 7930 Bom

                                                                   91 wp21252-22.docx

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
         Digitally
         signed by
         TRUSHA                      ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
TRUSHA   TUSHAR
TUSHAR   MOHITE
MOHITE   Date:
         2022.08.20
         17:05:49
         +0530
                                       WRIT PETITION (L) NO.21252 OF 2022


                      Adarsh Omprakash Kurmi                          ..... Petitioner

                               Vs.

                      The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                 ..... Respondents


                      Mr.Ashish Raghuvanshi i/b Mr.Ram U. Singh for the Petitioner

                      Mr.Manish Kelkar for Respondent no.2

                      Mr.Manish Upadhye, A.G.P. with Mr.M.A.Sayed, A.G.P. for the State

                      Mr.C.R.Sadasivan with Dr.B.P.Mishra for Respondent no.3


                                                CORAM:     S.V.GANGAPURWALA &
                                                           MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ.

                                                DATED :    AUGUST 17, 2022

                      P.C.

                      1        The Petitioner was admitted to B.Sc. (I.T.) three years regular

course in the academic year 2020-21. The Petitioner completed four

semesters of B.Sc.(I.T.) degree course. The said course is of six

semesters. After completing four semesters, the Petitioner applied

for admission to the final year i.e. 5th and 6th semester. The

Petitioner was informed that the Petitioner is not qualified for

admission to the said course on the ground that the Petitioner did

not possess Maths and Statistics subject in the 12th standard.

                      Mohite                                                            1/4
                                               91 wp21252-22.docx

2        The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the whole

course is for three years. The Petitioner completed two academic

years and till completion of two academic years, Respondents never

raised objection to the eligibility of the Petitioner. It is only while

taking admission to the 5th semester of T.Y.B.Sc. (I.T.), objection was

raised about the eligibility of the Petitioner.

3 The learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the Apex

Court in the case of Shri Krishnan vs The Kurukshetra University 1

and judgment of this court in the case of Syeda Aufiya Ahmad vs.

Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj, Nagpur University and others2.

4 The learned counsel for the University submits that all the

Colleges are aware of the rules. The same have been published. The

College ought not to have admitted the Petitioner as the Petitioner

did not pass 12th standard with Maths and Statistic subject. It is an

illegality committed by the College in admitting the Petitioner.

5 It is not disputed that the Petitioner had cleared 12 th standard

and thereafter, is admitted by Respondent no.3 College for B.Sc (I.T.)

regular degree course. The Petitioner had submitted his mark sheet

1 (1976) 1 SCC 311 2 (2013) 1 Mh.L.J. 185

Mohite 2/4 91 wp21252-22.docx

and all other relevant documents while securing admission to the

B.Sc.(I.T.) course. It is not the case of any of the Respondents that

the Petitioner had suppressed some documents or played fraud upon

the authorities while securing admission.

6 It is also not the case of Respondents that Petitioner, at any

point of time misrepresented about 12 th passing certificate.

Petitioner also never represented that he had passed 12 th with

Maths and Statistics as compulsory subject.

7 Petitioner certainly is not to be blamed for the present

situation. It was for the College to consider all the documents in

proper perspective.

8 The University also for two years did not take any steps. After

the Petitioner had completed substantial part of the course i.e. ¾ th of

the course, University issued letter to the College to the effect that

Petitioner did not pass 12th standard with Maths and Statistic

subject. As such, was not eligible, as per the relevant ordinance.

9 The judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of

Syeda Aufiya Ahmad (Supra) would squarely apply in the present

Mohite 3/4 91 wp21252-22.docx

case.

10 The Respondents ought to have been diligent. It would be

inequitable now to cancel the admission of the Petitioner. Petitioner

has already passed four semesters and has acquired necessary

knowledge in the said course.

11 In light of the above, impugned communication holding

Petitioner as not eligible is quashed and set aside. It is made clear

that we have passed the present order only on the ground that

Petitioner had completed substantial part of the course before the

action was taken by the Respondents and on the ground of equity.

12       Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.



(MADHAV J. JAMDAR,J.)                        (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)




Mohite                                                              4/4