Bombay High Court
Ivana Sameer Velani vs Principal Bhavans Colleage on 26 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Karnik
Bench: M.S.Karnik, N.R.Borkar
2025:BHC-OS:9658-DB
Ingale 911-wpl-18051-25.odt
Digitally signed
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
by URMILA
URMILA
PRAMOD
PRAMOD
INGALE ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Date:
INGALE 2025.06.30
14:49:35
+0530
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 18051 OF 2025
Ivana Sameer Velani & ors. ... Petitioners
Versus
The Principal,
Bhavan's College and anr. .... Respondents
****
Mr. Sanjeev B. Deore a/w Ms.Devakinandan R. Singh a/w
Mr.Arman Ansari i/b Ms.Suchita J. Pawar, for the Petitioners.
Ms.Satyapriya M. Rao, for Respondent No.1-College.
Mr. Rui Rodrigues a/w Mr. Jainendra Sheth, for the Respondent
No.2.
****
CORAM : M.S.KARNIK AND
N.R.BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 26th JUNE, 2025
JUDGMENT (PER M.S.KARNIK, J.) :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are
challenging the letter/communication dated 09/05/2025 and
letter dated 01/03/2025 issued by the respondent no.2-University
of Mumbai and letter dated 23/04/2025 whereby respondent no.2
called upon respondent no.1-College to withhold the semester wise
results and their degree certificate. The facts of the case in brief
are as under :
Ingale 911-wpl-18051-25.odt
2. The petitioners took admission in the respondent no.1 -
College in B.Sc (Computer Science) which is 3 year's integrated
course some time in 2022-2023. The petitioners, at the time of
filling admission forms, annexed all documents as essential criteria
laid down by respondent no.1 for 3 years integrated degree course.
The petitioners no. 1 & 2 completed their HSC i.e. Class 12 th in
Science (Physics, Chemistry and Biology). The petitioners no. 1 &
2 do not have Maths as a compulsory subject. The petitioner no.3
completed Class 12th in Commerce with Maths as compulsory
subject.
3. So far as eligibility for degree course of B.Sc (Computer
Science) is concerned, it was necessary while seeking admission in
B.Sc (Computer Science) that the students should have passed
Class 12th in Science faculty along with Maths as compulsory
subject. Though the petitioner no.3 had taken Maths as
compulsory subject but petitioner no.3 was from Commerce
faculty. The petitioners were thus not eligible to get the admission
in the first year of the B.Sc (Computer Science) degree course.
The petitioners while filling the admission form did not resort to
any concealment or misrepresentation. On the basis of the details
Ingale 911-wpl-18051-25.odt
provided by them, the respondent no. 1 - College admitted them
to B.Sc (Computer Science) degree course. It was for the
respondent no.1 - College and respondent no.2- University to have
verified the eligibility. However, University realised that the
petitioners are not eligible after the respondent no.1-College
informed the University in the year 2025. Respondent No.1 -
College informed the petitioners on 09/05/2025 as under :
"Sub: Your non-eligibility for the program of B.Sc. Computer Science.
Dear Sir/Madam,
We are in receipt of University Letter No. 2240 of 2025 dated
01.03.2025 and No. 55 of 2025 dated 23.04.2025, wherein the college
has been informed that you are not eligible for pursuing the B.Sc.
Computer Science degree course. This is as per Ordinance 0.5719,
wherein the candidate eligible for admission to the F.Y.B.Sc. Computer
Science degree course should have passed the XII standard in the
Science faculty with Mathematics as a compulsory subject.
As you are non-eligible for the said program, you are required to
surrender your original grade cards of Semesters I, II, III, IV, and V to
the Principal within three days of receipt of this letter. Kindly be
informed that, based on this communication from the University, your
result for all the semesters of B.Sc. Computer Science stands null and
void."
The petitioners were therefore called upon to surrender their
original grade cards of Semesters, I, II, III, IV and V to the
Principal within three days of receipt of this letter.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1- College candidly
submitted that there was inadvertent error on their part while
granting admission to the petitioners. It is however submitted that
Ingale 911-wpl-18051-25.odt
such an error was a bonafide one. There was delay in ascertaining
the eligibility and it is only when the College informed the
University that the University called upon the College to ask the
students to surrender the original grade cards and withhold result
of the semesters. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1
submitted that though there was inadvertent error in admitting the
petitioners which was bonafide mistake, in any case, respondent
no.1-College every year has submitted all necessary documents
regarding eligibility to the University.
5. Learned counsel Shri Rodrigues appearing for the University
while opposing the petition submitted that the College kept the
University in dark. According to Shri Rodrigues there is a schedule
within which time the College should have informed the University
about the eligibility. This was not done by the College. It is
submitted by Shri Rodrigues that at the fag end of the course
which the petitioners undertook, the College has informed the
University. In such circumstances Shri Rodrigues submitted that
the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of
Ingale 911-wpl-18051-25.odt
this Court in 1Rohan Ravindra Thatte Vs. University of Mumbai &
in 2Sai Sesha Abhinay Kallepalli Vs. University of Mumbai. In the
present case, it is seen that the petitioners do not have eligibility to
get admission to the B.Sc (Computer Science) degree course
which is 3 years integrated course. However, there is no
misrepresentation or concealment on the part of the petitioners
while securing admission. The petitioners have provided all
necessary details while filling up admission form. Learned counsel
for the respondent no. 1 - College submitted that on yearly basis
necessary information was provided to the University. This is
disputed by Shri Rodrigues. We find that it is at the fag end of the
3 years integrated course that the University raised an objection to
the eligibility of the petitioners who secured admission on the basis
of the information that was provided by respondent no.1 College.
7. In our opinion, respondent no.1-College should have noticed
at the earliest within the period stipulated by the University that
the petitioners were ineligible. In fact, there was a circular of the
University which provides that all necessary information regarding
eligibility has to be supplied by the College to the University within
1 Decision of Bombay High Court dated 15/01/2024 in Writ Petition (L) No.392/2023.
2 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 930.
Ingale 911-wpl-18051-25.odt
a stipulated period. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1-
College submitted that except for these petitioners, there are no
other ineligible students who are admitted. Learned counsel for
the respondent no.1-College on instructions submitted that
respondent no.1-College will be cautious in future and strictly
adhere to the circular/instructions which has been issued by the
University from time to time.
8. Only in the interest of justice at this distance of time at the fag
end of the course and as we do not find any fault with the
petitioners, we find it appropriate that the petitioners should not
be made to suffer as they have virtually completed the entire 3
years integrated course. The petitioners have performed well and
there is nothing adverse placed on record. In the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the present case, we are inclined to allow the
petition in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads thus:
"b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to exercise the jurisdiction vested in
it under Art 226 of Constitution of India and issue a writ of mandamus
thereby directing the Respondents to immediately issue the Petitioners
semester wise results as specified in the Para-5 of the Petition and also
their BSC (Computers) degree certificate"
9. We record the assurance of the respondent no.1-College that
Ingale 911-wpl-18051-25.odt
henceforth they will be cautious while scrutinising eligibility of the
students and that information will be supplied to University as per
schedule prescribed by the University.
10. Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
(N.R.BORKAR, J.) (M.S.KARNIK, J.)
