Bombay High Court
Dakshata Dasharath Sawant vs The State Of Maharashtra And 3 Others on 26 May, 2025
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
SNEHA
2025:BHC-OS:8255-DB
ABHAY
DIXIT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
SNEHA ABHAY
DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.4336 OF 2016
Date: 2025.05.26
19:10:51 +0530 ALONG WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16973 OF 2022
Natasha Michael D'Silva, ] .. Petitioner /
Student, R/of Antop Hill, Mumbai- 400 037 ] Applicant
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
Through Education Department ]
Through its Secretary ]
2. Council of Boards of School Education in India, ]
Having address at Ring Road, Delhi ]
Through its General Secretary ]
3. Maharashtra University of Health ]
Science, Nashik, ]
Through its Vice Chancellor ]
4. Shri Yeshwantrao Chavan Memorial Medical & ]
Rural Development Foundations' Dental College ]
& Hospital, Ahmednagar ]
Through its Principal ]
5. Board of School Education Hubli, ]
Hubli, Dharwad, Karnataka- 580021. ]
Through its Secretary ]
6. State of Karnataka, ]
Department of Primary and Secondary ]
Education, Bengaluru- 500001. ]
Through its Principal Secretary ]
7. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and ]
Higher Secondary Education, ]
Having office at Bhamburda, Shivaji Nagar, ]
Pune- 411004. ] .. Respondents
ALONG WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4338 OF 2016
Manali Mahesh Bhanushali, ]
Student, R/of Pari Naka, Wada, Dist. Palghar. ] .. Petitioner
1/30
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
::: Uploaded on - 26/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2025 22:25:28 :::
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
Through Secretary, Education Department ]
2. The Council of Board of School Education ]
of India, through its President/Chairman, ]
Having address at Ring Road, Delhi- 110 034. ]
3. Maharashtra University of Health Science, ]
Nashik, through its Vice Chancellor, ]
Dindori Road, Mhasrul, Nasik- 422 004. ]
4. Vasant Kusum Rural Yog & Ayurved ]
Sanshopdhan Pratisthan Siddhakala Ayurved ]
Mahavidyalaya, Sangamner 422 605. ]
Through its Principal ]
5. Board of School Education, Hubli, ]
Hubli, Dharwad, Karnataka- 580021. ]
Through its Secretary, ]
6. State of Karnataka, ]
Through Department of Primary and Secondary ]
Education, Bengaluru ]
Through its Principal Secretary ] .. Respondents
ALONG WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6319 OF 2016
1. Aishwarya Milind Jorwekar, ]
Student, R/of Katraj, Pune ]
2. Sumayya Kazi, ]
Student, R/of Pulgate, Camp, Pune ] .. Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra, ]
Medical Education & Drugs Department ]
Through its Additional Chief Secretary, ]
2. Council of Boards of School Education in India, ]
Delhi, through its President ]
3. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, ]
Nashik, through its Registrar ]
4. M.A. Rangoonwala College of Dental ]
Sciences & Research Center, Pune ]
Through its Principal ]
2/30
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
::: Uploaded on - 26/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2025 22:25:28 :::
5. Board of School Education, Hubli, ]
Karnataka, through its Secretary ]
6. Government of Karnataka, ]
Through its Principal Secretary, ]
Department of Primary & Secondary Education ] .. Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.182 OF 2017
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)
1. Dhairya Vipul Shah, ]
R/at Dadar (East), Mumbai - 400 014. ]
2. Siddiqui Mohammed Aftab Ahmed Zama, ]
R/at Mira Road, Thane - 401 107. ]
3. Abhishek Ganesh Kaligota, ]
R/at Vile-Parle (East), Mumbai 400 057. ]
4. Gayathri Velayutham, ]
R/at Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400 065. ]
5. Ajay Sudarshan Sahu, ]
R/at Katemanivali, Kalyan (East), Thane ] .. Petitioners
Versus
1. The University of Mumbai, ]
Santacruz (East), Mumbai 400 098 ]
Through its Vice Chancellor ]
2. Ramnarain Ruia College, ]
Matunga, Mumbai 400 019 ]
Through its Principal, ]
3. Rizvi College of Engineering, ]
Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 ]
Through its Principal, ]
4. Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Technology, ]
Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 053 ]
Through its Principal ]
5. K.J. Somaiya College of Science & ]
Commerce, Vidyavihar, Mumbai 400 077 ]
Through its Principal, ]
6. Dombivali Shikshan Prasarak Mandal's ]
K.V. Pendharkar College of Arts, Science ]
and Commerce, Dombivali (E), Thane. ]
7. Union of India, ]
Through Ministry of Human Resource, ]
Department of School Education & Literacy ]
8. Board of School Education, Hubli, ]
3/30
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
::: Uploaded on - 26/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2025 22:25:28 :::
Dahrwad, Karnataka- 580 021 ]
Through its Secretary ]
9. State of Karnataka, ]
Through Department of Primary and ]
Secondary Education, Bengaluru. ]
Through its Principal Secretary ] ..Respondents
ALONG WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1508 OF 2016
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.326 OF 2021
Devika Vishwanath Salunke, ]
Student, R/of Kharegaon, ] .. Petitioner /
Bhayander (E), Dist. Thane 401 105. ] Applicant
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, ]
Through Education Department, ]
Through its Secretary ]
2. The Council of Board of School Education in India, ]
Ring Road, Delhi - 110 034 ]
Through its President/Chairman ]
3. The University of Mumbai, ]
Through its Vice Chancellor ]
4. Xavier Institute of Engineering, ]
Mahim, Mumbai - 400 016 ]
Through its Principal ]
5. Board of School Education, Hubli ]
Dharwad, Karnataka- 580 021 ]
Through its Secretary ]
6. State of Karnataka, ]
Through Department of Primary and Secondary ]
Education, Bengaluru - 500 001 ]
Through its Principal Secretary ] .. Respondents
ALONG WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1513 OF 2016
Dakshata Dasharath Sawant ]
R/of Kala Chowki, Mumbai-400 033. ] .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, ]
Through Education Department ]
Through its Secretary ]
4/30
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
::: Uploaded on - 26/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2025 22:25:28 :::
2. The Council of Board of School Education in India, ]
Through its President / Chairman ]
3. The University of Mumbai, Kalina, Mumbai, ]
Through its Vice Chancellor ]
4. Vidyalankar Institute of Technology, ]
Wadala (East), Mumbai - 400 037 ]
Through its Principal ]
5. Board of School Education, Hubli, ]
Dharwad, Karnataka - 580021 ]
Through its Secretary ]
6. State of Karnataka, ]
Department of Primary and Secondary Education, ]
Bengaluru, through its Principal Secretary ] .. Respondents
ALONG WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.42 OF 2019
1. Mrunal Dattatray Dhumal ] .. Deleted
2. Aniket Arvind Dhanawade ]
Student, R/at Karanje Peth, Satara 415 002. ] .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The University of Mumbai, ]
Through its Registrar ]
2. Shri Bhausaheb Vartak Arts, Commerce & ]
Science College, Borivli (West), Mumbai 400 091 ]
Through its Principal ]
3. Rizvi College of Hotel and Tourism Management ]
Studies, Bandra (West), Mumbai 400 050 ]
Through its Principal ]
4. Union of India, ]
Through its Ministry of Human Resource, ]
Department of School Education & Literacy, ]
5. Council of Boards of School Education in India, ]
(COBSE), Ring Road, Delhi - 110 034. ]
Through its General Secretary ]
6. Board of School Education, Hubli, ]
Dharwad, Karnataka - 580021 ]
Through its Secretary ]
7. State of Karnataka, ]
Through Department of Primary and Secondary ]
Education, Bengaluru - 500 001. ]
Through its Principal Secretary ] .. Respondents
5/30
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
::: Uploaded on - 26/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2025 22:25:28 :::
---
Mr. N.N. Gawankar with Mr. Manas N. Gawankar, i/by Mr. Shreyas N.
Gawankar, Advocates for the Petitioner in WP No.4336 of 2016.
Mr. Sachin S. Punde, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP No.4338 of 2016,
Applicant in IA No.16973 of 2022 and for the Petitioners in WP Nos.182 of
2017, 1508 of 2016, 1513 of 2016 and 42 of 2016.
Mr. Kishor Patil with Mr. Siddheshwar N. Biradar, Advocates for the
Petitioners in WP No.6319 of 2016.
Ms. Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader with Ms. Kavita N. Solunke,
Assistant Government Pleader for the State of Maharashtra.
Mr. Rajshekhar V. Govilkar, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Shaba N. Khan and
Mr. Mihir Govilkar, Advocates for the MUHS.
Mr. Suhas S. Inamdar, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in WP No.6319 of
2016 and Advocate for Respondent No.5 in WP No.42 of 2019.
Mr. Sandeep R. Waghmare, Advocate for Respondent No.4 in WP No.6319
of 2016.
Mr. Rui Rodrigues, Advocate for Respondent No.1 in WP Nos.182 of 2017
& 42 of 2019 and for Respondent No.3 in WP Nos.1508 of 2016 & 1513 of
2016.
Mr. Milind More, Additional Government Pleader for the State of
Maharashtra in WP Nos.1508 of 2016 and 1513 of 2016.
Mr. N.R. Prajapati, Advocate for Respondent No.4 in WP No.42 of 2019.
Mr. Y.S. Bhate, Advocate for Respondent No.7 in WP No.182 of 2017.
---
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR & M.M. SATHAYE, JJ
The date on which the arguments concluded : 16 TH APRIL, 2025.
The date on which the Judgment is pronounced : 26th MAY, 2025.
JUDGMENT :
[ Per A.S. Chandurkar, J. ]
1. In this batch of writ petitions the petitioners have raised a challenge
to the action taken by the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences-
"MUHS" and the University of Mumbai holding them ineligible to pursue
undergraduate education on the ground that as they had passed their
Senior Secondary School Examination from the Board of School
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
Education, Hubli, Karnataka- the BSE, Hubli which was not registered
with the Council of Boards of School Education in India - "COBSE", they
were ineligible for being admitted in the undergraduate courses.
2 (a) The petitioners in Writ Petition No.6319 of 2016 appeared for the
Senior Secondary Examination conducted by the BSE, Hubli in July 2015.
Having passed the said examination, they took admission at the M.A.
Rangoonwala College of Dental Sciences and Research Centre, Pune at
the First Year Bachelor of Dental Studies - "BDS" course . After their
admission, when they were to appear in the examination at the end of the
first year of academic session 2015-16, their College was informed by the
MUHS on 12th May 2016 that as the petitioners had passed their Senior
Secondary Examination from the BSE, Hubli which was not registered
with the COBSE, they were ineligible for being admitted to the
Undergraduate Course. For that reason, the petitioners were not permitted
to appear in the examinations. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid
communication dated 12th May 2016, the petitioners have filed this writ
petition.
(b) In Writ Petition No.4338 of 2016, the petitioner passed her Senior
Secondary Examination from the BSE, Hubli and thereafter took
admission at the Siddhakala Ayurveda Mahavidyalaya, Sangameshwar,
District Ahmednagar. On 27th January 2016, the MUHS informed the
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
Institution that as the petitioner had passed her Senior Secondary
Examination from the BSE, Hubli which was not included in the list of
Boards maintained by the COBSE, she was not eligible to appear in the
First Year Ayurved Graduation Examination. The petitioner being
aggrieved by the said communication has filed this writ petition.
(c) In Writ Petition No.4336 of 2016, the petitioner passed her Senior
Secondary Examination from the BSE, Hubli in July 2015. She thereafter
took admission at the Dental College and Hospital, Vadgaon, District
Ahmednagar in academic session 2015-16. On 3 rd February 2016, the
MUHS informed the Institution that as the petitioner had passed her
Senior Secondary Examination from the BSE, Hubli which was not a Board
registered with the COBSE, she was not eligible to be admitted at the First
Year of the BDS Course. She was therefore not permitted to appear in the
examinations. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition
challenging the aforesaid communication.
(d) The petitioners in Writ Petition No.182 of 2017 have passed their
Senior Secondary Examination at the BSE, Hubli. They thereafter took
admission in various undergraduate courses in educational Institutions
affiliated to the University of Mumbai in the academic year 2016-17. The
respective educational Institutions were informed by the University of
Mumbai that each petitioner was not eligible for pursuing undergraduate
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
education on the ground that the BSE, Hubli was not recognised by the
COBSE. The petitioners are aggrieved by the communications dated 5 th
November 2016 and 9th November 2016 issued by the University of
Mumbai in that regard.
(e) In Writ Petition No.42 of 2019, the name of petitioner no.1 came to
be deleted from the array of parties at his request by the order dated 19 th
July 2024. The petitioner no.2 passed his Senior Secondary Examination
from the BSE, Hubli in June, 2017. The petitioner no.2 thereafter obtained
admission at the B.Sc. (Hospitality Studies) at the respondent no.3-
Institution affiliated to the University of Mumbai. By the communication
dated 26th October 2018, the Institution was informed that as the BSE,
Hubli was not recognized by the COBSE, the petitioner no.2 was not
eligible for being admitted at the under graduate degree course. Being
aggrieved, the petitioner no.2 has filed this writ petition.
(f) In Writ Petition No.1513 of 2016, the petitioner passed her Senior
Secondary Examination from the BSE, Hubli in July 2015. She thereafter
secured admission at the undergraduate course being conducted by the
respondent no.4-Institution affiliated to the University of Mumbai. On 19 th
October 2015, the Institution was informed by the University of Mumbai
that the BSE, Hubli was not recognized by the COBSE and hence the
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
petitioner was not eligible for pursuing the undergraduate degree course.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
(g) The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1508 of 2016 has passed her
Senior Secondary Examination from the BSE, Hubli in July 2015. She
thereafter obtained admission in the undergraduate course at the
respondent no.4-Institution affiliated to the University of Mumbai. On 9 th
December 2015, the University of Mumbai informed the Institution that as
the BSE, Hubli was not recognised by the COBSE, the petitioner was not
eligible to pursue the undergraduate degree course. Being aggrieved, the
petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. Heard Mr. N.N. Gawankar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ
Petition No.4336 of 2016, Mr. Sachin Punde, learned counsel for the
petitioner in Writ Petition No.4338 of 2016, Writ Petition No.182 of 2017,
Writ Petition No.1508 of 2016, Writ Petition No.1513 of 2016 and Writ
Petition No.42 of 2019, Mr. Kishor Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners
in Writ Petition No.6319 of 2016, Ms. Neha Bhide, learned Government
Pleader and Mr. Milind More, learned Additional Government Pleader for
the State of Maharashtra, Mr. Rajshekhar Govilkar, learned Senior
Advocate for the MUHS, Mr. Rui Rodrigues, learned counsel for the
University of Mumbai, Mr. Suhas Inamdar, learned counsel for the COBSE,
Mr. Sandeep Waghmare, learned counsel for the affiliated Colleges, Mr. Y.
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
S. Bhate and Mr. N. R. Prajapati, learned counsel for the Union of India.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the
only reason for holding the petitioners' ineligible to pursue undergraduate
education was that the petitioners had passed the Senior Secondary
Examination from the BSE, Hubli which was not registered with the
COBSE. Referring to the Executive Order dated 18 th March 2015 issued by
the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Dharwad, Government of
Karnataka, it was submitted that the Secretary, BSE, Hubli was informed
that the examination conducted by the BSE, Hubli and the certificates
issued by it were recognised by the Government of Karnataka. In the said
Executive Order it was stated that the BSE, Hubli fully satisfied the
eligibility criteria that was laid down by the COBSE for grant of
membership. It was submitted that on 22 nd June 2016, the COBSE in reply
to certain queries made under the provisions of the Right to Information
Act, 2005 had stated that the BSE, Hubli had submitted an application
with the COBSE seeking its membership. That application was under
process. It was further stated that when a Board was recognised by the
State Government, it was not necessary for it to have a separate certificate
issued by the COBSE. By another communication dated 3 rd August 2015, it
was clarified by the COBSE that obtaining membership of the COBSE was
not essential but that the Board conducting examinations ought to be
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
recognised by the Central Government or the State Government so that
the certificates issued had All India equivalence. Reference was made to
Office Memorandum dated 24th April 2017 issued by the Ministry of
Human Resource Development wherein it was stated that the COBSE had
not been established by the Ministry of Human Resource Development and
that membership of the COBSE did not result in automatic grant of status
as a recognized Board upon any member Board. Referring to the website
maintained by the BSE, Hubli it was submitted that even as on 4 th
September 2024, it was mentioned that the BSE, Hubli was registered and
recognised by the Government of Karnataka. On the aforesaid basis, it was
urged that the petitioners having bonafide pursued education and
obtained the Senior Secondary Certificate from the BSE, Hubli after which
they took admission in the respective Undergraduate Courses, the MUHS
was not justified in preventing the petitioners from pursuing higher
education on the ground that the BSE, Hubli was not registered with the
COBSE. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in
Abdul Lateef Nomani Vs. University of Delhi and Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine
Del 10856. It was then submitted that by virtue of various interim orders
passed by this Court, the petitioners had now completed their
undergraduate education successfully and were awaiting their degree
certificates. Referring to the decisions in Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs.
Karnataka University and Anr., 1986 INSC 101 , Ashok Chand Singhvi Vs.
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
University of Jodhpur and Ors., 1989 INSC 20 and Syeda Aufiya Ahmad
Vs. Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University and Ors., 2013(1)
Mh.L.J. 185, it was submitted that upholding the impugned
communications issued by the MUHS and the University of Mumbai at
this point of time would result in causing undue hardship to the
petitioners as they had spent precious years in pursuing higher education.
It was thus submitted that the impugned communications issued by the
MUHS and the University of Mumbai were liable to be quashed and
appropriate directions be issued to grant the petitioners their degree
certificates by holding their admissions to be valid.
5 (a) In Writ Petition No.6319 of 2016, affidavit-in-reply has been filed on
behalf of the MUHS by its Section Officer. Reference therein has been
made to the communication dated 18th October 2012 and 9th January 2013
addressed to the Secretary, COBSE. The MUHS sought to confirm the
genuineness of the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi and the
Central Board of Higher Education, Delhi so as to enable the MUHS to
accept examination forms submitted by the students who had taken
education from the said Boards. Reply to the same was given on 17 th
January 2013 by the COBSE wherein it was stated that the Central Board
of Higher Education, Delhi and the Board of Higher Secondary Education,
New Delhi did not appear in the list of Members of the COBSE. Therefore,
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
the certificates issued by those Boards could not be treated to be
equivalent for pursuing higher studies in Central / State Government
organizations.
(b) In Writ Petition No.4336 of 2016, affidavit-in-reply has been filed by
the MUHS through its Section Officer. It has been stated therein that as
the name of the BSE, Hubli was not included in the list of members
maintained by the COBSE, the petitioner was not eligible for pursuing
higher education as he had passed the Senior Secondary Examination
from the BSE, Hubli. Reference has been made to Ordinance No.3 of 2010
that relates to eligibility and enrollment of students for undergraduate
courses. It is stated that there is a requirement of passing a Higher
Secondary School Certificate Examination from a recognized Council or
Board of School Examination in India for pursuing undergraduate courses.
As the BSE, Hubli was not registered with the COBSE, it was rightly held
that the petitioner was not eligible to pursue higher education. Reliance
was placed on the order dated 20th October 2015 passed in Writ Petition
No.4465 of 2015 (Adarsh Rammani Pandey Vs. The Maharashtra
University of Health Sciences and Anr.) by the Nagpur Bench. In Writ
Petition No.4338 of 2016, similar affidavit-in-reply as filed in Writ Petition
No.4336 of 2016 has been filed.
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
6. Mr. R. V. Govilkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the MUHS
referred to the aforesaid affidavits and supported the impugned
communications issued by the MUHS. According to him, since the
petitioners were not eligible for seeking admission at the undergraduate
courses on the ground that they had passed their Senior Secondary
Examination from the BSE, Hubli which was not registered with the
COBSE, they were not entitled to any relief whatsoever. Though the
petitioners were permitted to pursue the undergraduate courses in which
they were admitted in view of various interim orders passed from time to
time, it was made clear in the said orders that the petitioners were not
entitled to claim any equity and that their results were being declared
subject to outcome of the writ petitions. Since the petitioners lacked basic
eligibility for being admitted at the undergraduate courses, they were not
entitled to any relief whatsoever. Similarly, on the basis of sympathy too,
no relief be granted to them. The petitioners had pursued higher
education at their own risk and hence were not entitled to any equity
whatsoever. The writ petitions were therefore liable to be dismissed.
7 (a) In Writ Petition No.182 of 2017, affidavit has been filed on behalf of
the University of Mumbai by its Officiating Deputy Registrar, Eligibility and
Migration Section. It has been stated therein that the petitioner was
granted provisional eligibility for admission at the undergraduate course
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
as the petitioners had passed the Senior Secondary School Course from
the BSE, Hubli. The University of Mumbai had issued the letters dated 9 th
November 2016 and 5th November 2016 for the reason that the name of
the BSE, Hubli did not figure in the list of Boards maintained by the
COBSE.
(b) In Writ Petition No.42 of 2019, affidavit-in-reply has been filed by
the Deputy Registrar, Enrollment, Eligibility and Migration Certificate Unit
of the University of Mumbai wherein it is stated that since the petitioners
had passed their Senior Secondary Examination from the BSE, Hubli
which was not a Member of the COBSE, they were treated as not eligible
for admission. The COBSE has also filed its affidavit dated 12 th September
2019 wherein it is stated that the BSE, Hubli was not a recognised Board
by the Central Government or the State Government and that the COBSE
had denied its membership to the BSE, Hubli. The said order had been
challenged by the BSE, Hubli by filing Writ Petition No.8389 of 2016
before the Delhi High Court. It has been informed that on 18 th July 2024,
the said writ petition came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. The
Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School
Education and Literacy has also filed its affidavit dated 7 th December 2021
in which it is stated that only the Central Board of Secondary Education -
CBSE and National Institute of Open Schooling - NIOS were recognized by
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
the Ministry of Education. The said Ministry did not recognise or approve
any Education Board set up by other entities.
(c) In Writ Petition No.1513 of 2016, affidavit-in-reply has been filed by
the Director, Secondary Education Department, State of Karnataka. It has
been stated therein that the Block Education Officer, Hubli had been
instructed to verify the genuineness of the certificates issued by the BSE,
Hubli to the petitioner. The report dated 29 th November 2022 in that
regard was submitted by the Block Education Officer in which he had
stated that there was no school in the name of Open School Hubballi city
range. On that basis, a criminal complaint was filed before the
jurisdictional police station. It is further stated that on 27 th February 2018,
the State of Karnataka had issued a Circular indicating names of
Institutions that were recognised by it. The BSE, Hubli was not included in
the said list. Reference is also made to the communication dated 18 th
February 2016 as well as the Office Memorandum dated 24 th April 2017
issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development in that regard.
(d) In Writ Petition No.1508 of 2016, affidavit-in-reply has been filed by
the Director, Secondary Education Department, Government of Karnataka.
It has been stated therein that the Block Education Officer, Hubli had been
instructed to verify the genuineness of the certificates issued by the BSE,
Hubli to the petitioner. The report dated 29 th November 2022 in that
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
regard was submitted by the Block Education Officer in which he had
stated that there was no school in the name of Open School Hubballi City
Range. On that basis, a criminal complaint was filed before the
jurisdictional police station. It is further stated that on 27 th February 2018,
the State of Karnataka had issued a circular indicating names of
Institutions that were recognised by it. The BSE, Hubli was not included in
the said list. Reference is also made to the communication dated 18 th
February 2016 as well as the Office Memorandum dated 24 th April 2017
issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development in that regard.
(e) Affidavit-in-reply has also been filed by the Deputy Registrar,
Eligibility and Migration Certificate Unit of the University of Mumbai in
which it is stated that as the BSE, Hubli was not recognized by the COBSE,
the petitioner was not eligible for pursuing the undergraduate course in an
Institution affiliated to it.
8. Mr. Rui Rodrigues, the learned counsel appearing for the University
of Mumbai opposed the writ petitions. He referred to the affidavit in reply
filed on behalf of the University of Mumbai as well as the Circular issued
by the Enrollment, Eligibility and Migration Certificate Unit of the
University of Mumbai . According to him the University of Mumbai was
justified in holding the petitioners ineligible for seeking admission at the
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
undergraduate courses in colleges affiliated to it. The BSE, Hubli had not
been granted membership of the COBSE and therefore the petitioners
could not be treated to be eligible to seek admission. Merely on the
ground that the petitioners had been admitted in view of interim orders
passed in the writ petitions, they were not entitled for any further relief in
absence of their eligibility to seek admission. The education undertaken
was at the risk of the petitioners and subject to outcome of the writ
petitions. He therefore submitted that there was no reason to interfere
with the impugned communications issued by the University of Mumbai
holding the petitioners ineligible. The writ petitions were liable to be
dismissed.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and with
their assistance, we have perused the relevant documents on record. At
the outset, we may take up for consideration Writ Petition No.4336 of
2016. The petitioner passed her Senior Secondary Examination from the
BSE, Hubli in July 2015 and thereafter obtained admission at the
respondent no.4-Institution. The petitioner has filed an additional affidavit
dated 27th November 2024 wherein she has stated that in February 2015
she passed her Higher Secondary Certificate Examination from the
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education,
Pune. She has further stated that by virtue of various interim orders
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
passed in the writ petition, she appeared for all the examinations at the
BDS course and thereafter successfully completed the said course in
September, 2019. She further completed her one year internship on 15 th
October 2020. She was issued an Internship Completion Certificate on 3 rd
September 2021.
10. After the petitioner filed her additional affidavit, there has been no
rejoinder filed by any of the respondents. In the light of the fact that the
petitioner possesses a Higher Secondary Certificate issued by a recognised
Education Board coupled with the fact that she has completed her BDS
course as well as internship, it is not necessary in these facts to go into the
correctness of the impugned communication dated 3 rd February 2016 qua
the petitioner. Suffice it to observe that in the light of the fact that the
petitioner has passed her Higher Secondary Certificate Examination from a
recognised Education Board, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (b), which reads as under :-
"(b). That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that
the present petitioner is eligible to pursue the First
Year Degree Course in B.D.S. in respondent no.4 -
College which is affiliated with respondent no.3 i.e.
Maharashtra University of Health Science, Nashik."
Consequently, the respondents shall treat the petitioner as eligible
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
for pursuing the BDS course since inception. All consequential steps be
taken pursuant to this declaration. Rule in Writ Petition No.4336 of 2016
is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
11. Coming to the other writ petitions, at the outset, it would be
material to refer to the Executive Order issued by the Deputy Director of
Public Instructions, Dharwad, Government of Karnataka dated 18 th March
2015. It has been stated therein that the BSE, Hubli was an autonomous
institution registered under the Government of Karnataka. The BSE, Hubli
had proposed to introduce the Open Schooling system in the State of
Karnataka. After carefully examining the proposal submitted by the BSE,
Hubli for introducing Open Schooling Programmes in the State of
Karnataka, it was permitted to function as a self-sustained / non-
governmental body without any financial support from the State
Government. Its further communication of the same date indicates that
the examination conducted by the BSE, Hubli as well as the Certificates of
Secondary and Senior Secondary Examination issued by it were
recognised by the State of Karnataka.
These communications in clear terms indicate the stand of the
Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Dharwad and permit the BSE,
Hubli to conduct the Senior Secondary course. The Executive Order dated
18th March 2015 has been issued prior to commencement of the academic
session 2015-16, which was the period when the petitioners were issued
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
the Senior Secondary School Certificate by the BSE, Hubli.
12. It can be further seen that the Ministry of Human Resource
Development has issued an Office Memorandum on 24 th April 2017
wherein it has been clarified that the COBSE had been functioning without
any authorization from the Ministry of Human Resource Development. It
is stated that though the COBSE claimed that it was responsible for
verifying the genuineness / recognition of Schools and Education Board in
India, the COBSE was a private organization and its membership was
voluntary. The COBSE had not been established by the said Ministry and
that membership of the COBSE did not result in automatic grant of status
of a recognized Board upon any member Board.
This Office Memorandum clearly establishes that the COBSE was
not established by the Ministry of Human Resource Development and that
it was a private organization. Its membership did not result in automatic
grant of status as a recognized Board or any Board of School Education.
This Office Memorandum therefore indicates that obtaining membership
of the COBSE did not confer any status or recognition to the BSE, Hubli.
In other words, absence of registration with the COBSE would not have
any legal effect whatsoever on a Board of School Education.
13. It is to be noted that the only reason assigned by the MUHS as well
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
as the University of Mumbai for holding the petitioners ineligible to pursue
undergraduate education is that they had passed their Senior Secondary
Examination from the BSE, Hubli which was not a member of the COBSE.
Once it becomes clear that membership of the COBSE does not give any
additional status or recognition to a Board of School Education, the mere
reason that the BSE, Hubli was not a member of the COBSE is hardly of
any consequence whatsoever. It is thus clear that the reason assigned by
the MUHS and the University of Mumbai of absence of the BSE, Hubli
being a member of the COBSE cannot come in the way of the petitioners
to hold them ineligible for seeking admission in the Under Graduate
Courses,
Notwithstanding this, it is material to note that even according to
the COBSE, as on 22nd June 2015, the BSE, Hubli had submitted an
application seeking membership of the COBSE. The status of that
application was indicated as "under examination / process". This would
indicate that when academic session 2015-16 commenced, the BSE,
Hubli's application seeking membership of the COBSE was under
consideration by it. The petitioners are therefore justified in relying upon
the steps taken by the BSE, Hubli in seeking membership of the COBSE.
14. Coming to the affidavits filed on behalf of the State of Karnataka
through the Director, Secondary Education Department, it is seen that it
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
seeks to rely upon a report of the Block Education Officer dated 29 th
November 2022 which stated that there was an unauthorised Open School
at Akshaya Park, Vidyanagar. On that basis, a First Information Report
No.0036/2023 was lodged on 15th February 2023 against the petitioner in
Writ Petition No.1513 of 2016.
It is to be noted that the General Secretary, COBSE had on 30 th April
2015 sought verification of various documents from the Office of the
Deputy Director, Commissioner of Public Information as regards the BSE
Hubli's application for membership of the COBSE. By the communication
dated 19th May 2015, the Deputy Director of Public Instructions verified
the relevant documents including the application made by the BSE, Hubli
on 3rd November 2014 seeking permission for setting up the Board of
School Education. The order dated 31 st December 2014 issued by the
Directorate of Public Instruction authorising the BSE, Hubli to conduct
secondary and senior secondary examinations and issue 10 + 2 certificates
was also verified. All these documents duly verified can be seen at pages
94 to 106 as part of the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioners in Writ
Petition No.6319 of 2016. It is material to note that all these developments
have occurred prior to commencement of academic session 2015-16.
15. In Rajendra Prasad Mathur (supra), various students, whose
admissions had been cancelled by the Karnataka University for want of
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
necessary eligibility, approached the Supreme Court challenging the order
passed by the Karnataka High Court refusing to grant them any relief. On
the question of equivalence and eligibility, it was observed that the same
was an academic question in which the Court should not disturb the
decision taken by the University. It was however noted that in the
meanwhile, the students had pursued their education under the orders of
the High Court and the Supreme Court and that they had completed their
education. While holding that the students were not eligible for admission
to the concerned degree course, it was observed that the blame for their
wrongful admission was more on the colleges that granted them
admission. There was no reason that the students should suffer for the sins
of the Managements of the said colleges. On that basis, the students were
permitted to continue their studies at the respective colleges while
permitting the authorities to take action against the erring colleges.
In Ashok Chand Singhvi (supra), it was observed that if an
admission is taken without suppressing any material documents after
which the admission is granted, it would not be justifiable to deny such
students the permission to continue their admission as well as education.
In Ebtesham Khatoon Vs. Union of India & Ors. , Special Leave
Petition No.6658 of 2021 decided on 12 th February 2025, students were
admitted to the Undergraduate Ayush Courses without having appeared
for the NEET UG 2019 examination. On the ground that there had not
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
been proper publication of the applicability of NEET UG 2019 for
admission, the students were permitted to continue their education by the
learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court. The Division Bench
however set aside the order of the learned Single Judge holding the
students eligible to pursue the course. The students approached the
Supreme Court which noted that the students had completed their course
for which they were granted admission and that it would be futile to
withhold their results. Despite noting that the students could not have
been granted admission to the courses as they had not appeared in NEET
examination, considering the fact that the students had completed their
education and that withholding their results or degree would cause
immense hardship to them, they were granted benefit of the education
undertaken by them.
In Zaid Sheikh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., 2025
INSC 353, which decision was referred to by Mr. Rui Rodrigues, learned
counsel for the University of Mumbai, the ineligibility of the petitioner was
the subject matter of consideration before the Madhya Pradesh High
Court. When the proceedings were pending, the petitioner was permitted
to attend classes pursuant to interim orders. The High Court ultimately
dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was initially
ineligible to be admitted to the degree course for want of passing English
subject in the qualifying examination. In that context, it was observed that
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
fulfilling the basic eligibility for admission was a sine qua non which ought
not to be overlooked or ignored. However, considering the facts of the case
and that the petitioner had thereafter appeared in the English subject
examination and had passed, coupled with the fact that he had completed
the entire course as well as mandatory internship, he was treated eligible
for completing the said course and internship as an eligible student.
16. In these writ petitions, it is seen that at the commencement of
academic session 2015-16, the issue with regard to the requirement of
having membership of the COBSE was under consideration. According to
the COBSE, the BSE, Hubli had made an application seeking its
membership. This is clear from the communication dated 22 nd June 2016
issued by the COBSE. The Executive Order dated 18 th March 2015 states
that the BSE, Hubli was an autonomous institution registered with the
Government of Karnataka. Various documents had been verified in that
regard. The stand taken by the Ministry of Human Resources that
membership of the COBSE was not mandatory is clear in view of the
Office Memorandum on 24th April 2017. All this would indicate that at the
relevant time, which is commencement of academic session 2015-16, the
issue with regard to membership of the COBSE was a live issue and
various communications between the authorities had been exchanged
from time to time. In the meanwhile, by virtue of various interim orders
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
passed by this Court, the petitioners pursued their respective
undergraduate courses from the academic session 2015-16 and some from
2016-17. They have now completed their degree education and some of
them have also completed their internship.
We are therefore of the view that keeping in mind the nature of
dispute with regard to membership of the COBSE, the entire blame cannot
be put on the petitioners. Their pursuit of higher education at the BSE,
Hubli appears to be bonafide and genuine. The Executive Order dated 18 th
March 2015 issued by the Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Dharwad
also cannot be ignored. The anxiety of students and their parents in
securing admission at available avenues needs to be borne in mind. Thus,
taking an overall view of the matter, coupled with the fact that the
petitioners have now completed their education and that it would be
extremely harsh to hold them ineligible for seeking admission for their
undergraduate education in 2015-16 in these peculiar facts, we hold that
the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the education taken by them
for all these years. We may gainfully refer to the maxim Actus Curiae
Neminem Gravabit, that an act of the Court should, ordinarily, not
prejudice anyone. The same has been relied upon in Zaid Sheikh (supra)
and we are inclined to invoke the same in the facts of these writ petitions.
17. As regards the stand of the State of Karnataka in its affidavits dated
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
4th December 2023, it is seen that the inspection by the Block Education
Officer was undertaken in November, 2022 which was much after the
petitioners were admitted and they were at the fag end of their education.
The filing of the First Information Report and the prosecution, if initiated,
for being taken at its logical end would take its own time. Suffice it to
observe that insofar as the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1513 of 2016 is
concerned, declaration of her result and holding her eligible would be
subject to outcome of the proceedings initiated pursuant to First
Information Report No.0036/2023 dated 15 th February 2023 at the
Dharwad Police Station.
18. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are allowed. The
impugned communications in each writ petition shall not apply qua the
respective petitioners. Each petitioner is held to be entitled to declaration
of her/his results and award of degrees subject to satisfying other
necessary requirements. Insofar as the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1513
of 2016 is concerned, the declaration of her result and award of degree
would be subject to outcome of the criminal proceedings, if any, instituted
pursuant to First Information Report No.0036/2023 dated 15 th February
2023 lodged at the Dharwad Police Station. It is clarified that the
concerned authorities, namely the Ministry of Human Resource
Development, the Government of Karnataka, the MUHS, the University of
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
Mumbai and the COBSE are not precluded by this judgment from
continuing their action/initiating any action against the BSE, Hubli for
any illegalities committed by it. Such action, if any, would take its own
course in accordance with law.
Rule is made absolute in each writ petition in the aforesaid terms
with no order as to costs. The pending Interim Applications are also
disposed of.
[ M.M. SATHAYE, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
