bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1222 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 1222 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 1222 OF 2008 Sagar Rajesh Gandhi ... Petitioner v/s The State of Maharashtra & 2 ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.M.Railkar for the petitioner. Mr.P.I.Khemani, A.G.P. for the respondent No.1. Mr.Kiran Gandhi for the respondent No.2. Mr.G.J.Sabnis for the respondent No.3. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND J.N.PATEL AND J.N.PATEL AND SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. DATED: DATED: DATED: 22ND FEBRUARY, 2008. 22ND FEBRUARY, 2008. 22ND FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. This petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 3. The petitioner is a student who had joined respondent No.3 college for the First Year Junior College. 4. The petitioner student was to appear for 12th Standard Examination i.e. H.S.C. for which he submitted his examination form to the respondent No.3 2 institution. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 institution misplaced the examination form of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner could not get admission card (hall ticket). On enquiry he found that the examination form of the petitioner was not submitted to respondent No.2 Board before the cut-off date i.e. 17.10.2007 and even subsequently i.e. before the final date which was 28.1.2008 as the Board would have accepted the same alongwith late fee and penalty. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 institution submits that the form of the petitioner student was misplaced and, therefore, it is only when it came to the notice that the the Board refused to accept the form and by their communication dated 16.2.2008 informed the Principal of the respondent No.3 institution that petitioner’s examination application form cannot be accepted for the reason that it is submitted after the excessive delay and after the final due date and therefore the rules do not permit the Board to entertain such examination form. 6. In view of the fact that respondent No.3 institution was negligent in dealing with the case of the petitioner, the petitioner should not be made to suffer 3 as the petitioner would loose one academic year of his career which is not proper. In similar matter this Court has, in the interest of the student, directed the Board to accept the examination form of the student with late fee and penalty as per Rules. This is a case where the matter has gone beyond the ambit of the Board as the examinations are going to commence from 28.2.2008 and the Rules do not permit the Board even after levying the penalty to accept the form. 7. Therefore, treating this as an exceptional case, we direct the respondent Board to accept the examination form of the petitioner if it is found to be complete in all respects by collecting late fee and penalty from respondent No.3 institution and for the additional cost which the Board would be required to incur in order to accommodate the petitioner student, we impose costs of Rs.50,000/-, out of which Rs.25,000/- would be paid to the respondent Board and the balance amount of Rs.25,000/- would be paid to the petitioner student. We are required to impose this cost so that the respondent No.3 would be careful in respect of the academic careers of the students and is diligent in the matter in future. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent Board says that the examination form should be submitted alongwith the 4 late fee and penalty alongwith Rs.25,000/- cost imposed by this Court till tomorrow i.e. 23.2.2008 before 1.00 p.m. in the office of the Board and that will be accepted and the petitioner would be issued admission card (hall ticket). It is further clarified that so far as the choice of centre is concerned, it is left to the discretion of the Board and the petitioner would not claim any preference or privilege in the matter. 9. All the concerned parties to act on the authenticated copy of the order. (J.N. (J.N. (J.N. PATEL, J.) PATEL, J.) PATEL, J.) (SMT.NISHITA (SMT.NISHITA (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) MHATRE, J.) MHATRE, J.)