1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 5875/2010 ( Ku. Maithili S. Kale .vs. Chaitanya Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha’s College of Engineering and Management and others. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : JUNE 13, 2011 Heard Advocate Shri Kadu for the petitioner, Advocate Shri J.B. Jaiswal for respondent no.2 and learned AGP Shri S.J. Jichkar for respondents no.3 and 4. Nobody appears for respondent no.1. Facts clearly show that the course undertaken by the petitioner with Ryan Polytechnic College, Goregaon which is affiliated to Tilak Maharashtra University, Pune was not recognized by AICTE and hence on 8.5.2008 respondent no.3 had issued a communication informing all concerned that said course cannot be treated as equivalent or recognized. The petitioner in the face of this document was given admission by respondent no.1 and after completion of fourth semester examination, he was informed on 12.7.2010 that as said diploma course on the strength of which he was given admission was not recognized, his admission was not proper and he was 2 found disqualified. According to Shri Kadu on 24.9.2009 the College/Institute while granting admission to the petitioner has found that the diploma was approved by AICTE. He further contends that in any case the decision is being taken after more than one year and that too after petitioner had deposited an amount of more than Rs.2,20,000/- with respondent no.1. He is relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court 823 Ashok Chand Singhvi .vs. University of Jodhpur and others to urge that when the petitioner is not at fault, such communication of disqualification or cancellation of his admission cannot be sustained. Learned AGP as also Advocate Shri Jaiswal support the impugned order. They contend that when the diploma course itself was not recognized by AICTE, the admission of the petitioner to respondent no.1 College on its strength is itself faulted. According to him, in this view of the matter the reported judgment has no application. Perusal of the reported judgment reveals that there candidate had secured less marks than the stipulated percentage. During the admission, objection in that respect was raised by the Officer in charge and thereafter direction for admitting the student was given. This objection was noticed both by Dean and the Vice Chancellor and after noticing it the appellant before the Hon’ble Apex Court was given admission. It is in this respect the Hon’ble Apex Court has made observation that when student was not at fault, he could not have 3 been made to suffer. Here it cannot be presumed that the petitioner was not aware of the fact that diploma course completed by him was not recognized by AICTE. Not only this in any case completion of such course from unrecognized Institute cannot be used by him as a weapon to defend his admission. There cannot be any estoppel in such matters. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the petition. So far as belated cancellation of admission or payment of fees etc. are concerned, various disputed questions arise and the petitioner can take appropriate action against respondent no.1 in the matter if it is open to him in law. Petition dismissed accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE halwai