:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.789 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.789 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.789 OF 2009 Ms Aarti Suresh Keswani, .. Petitioner Vs. 1.University of Mumbai; 2.Thadomal Shahani Engineering College, .. .. Respondents. Mr A.A.Kumbhakoni a/w Mr Parag Shelke i/b Mr V.M.Talreja, for the petitioner. Mr.R.Rodrigues, for respondent no.1. Mr B.S.Chandnani, for respondent no.2. CORAM : S.B.MHASE & CORAM : S.B.MHASE & CORAM : S.B.MHASE & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. DATE : 12.03.2009. DATE : 12.03.2009. DATE : 12.03.2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached to this court seeking permission to appear for VII Semester examination of Information Technology. The results of the petitioner in respect of the V and VI Semesters were declared by the University as per their schedule. It is revealed from that result that the petitioner had failed in all eight subjects, i.e. seven subjects of the theory papers and one subject of the practical training. Ordinance O.3729 provides that a candidate, who has failed in not more than :2: :2: :2: five heads of passing of Semester V and Semester VI examinations considered together, will also be permitted to appear for Semester VII examination. Since the petitioner had failed in eight heads of the examinations, the petitioner was not eligible to get an admission for VII Semester with the respondent college. However, after the result was declared, the petitioner had preferred an application for revaluation on 26.8.2008 and, therefore, in anticipation that the petitioner may be cleared in respect of the three heads of passing so that the petitioner can fit in the above referred Ordinance and thereby can be admitted to the college, the college gave an admission to the petitioner. Even rules framed by the University also permit college to give such admission. The result of the revaluation was declared by the University on 1.12.2008. However, before the result of the revaluation is declared there was a date in October 2008 for filling in the examination form for the VII Semester. Before the revaluation result was declared there was an oral examination and the practical training examination in the month of November in respect of the one head of passing. The petitioner reappeared in the said examination and had cleared that head of passing. In the result, the practical training head in which the :3: :3: :3: petitioner was unsuccessful was cleared by the petitioner in November, 2008 and the petitioner was found to be successful in the three heads of passing, that is, two heads of passing of theory papers and one head of passing in practical. Therefore, by 1.12.2008 it was found that out of the eight subjects wherein the petitioner had failed, the petitioner was successful in two subjects of theory in revaluation and in one subject of practical by re-examination. In the result, it appears that prior to the VII Semester examination, the petitioner is unsuccessful only in five subjects of the V and VI Semesters. However, we make it clear that on a clear interpretation of Ordinance O.3729, what we find is that the admission could not have been given by the college and the college had done all these things in anticipation of the results in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, technically speaking, the admission of the petitioner was unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. We also find that the College had also given the admission in view of the Circular of the University. Therefore, college cannot be blamed for said act of college. While noting the facts we have not expressed any opinion on merit of the case. But we have noted these facts to place on record the peculiar facts :4: :4: :4: which are brought to the notice of court. Under these circumstances, when we asked the learned counsel for the College, whether the College can help the petitioner in exercise of the powers of the Principal or the Rules and Regulations of the Institution, the blanket answer given by the learned counsel is that he is not in a position to help the petitioner. Then it is for the University to consider the case of the petitioner. Under the above referred facts and circumstances, we find that the University may do something but what can be done and to what extent the University can help the candidate, like the petitioner, is a matter to be considered by the University and its appropriate body. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that the petitioner desires to make an appropriate representation to the University. We find the said course to be more appropriate than to decide the present petition. Therefore, what we find is that within eight days the petitioner shall make an appropriate application to the University through the College. The College shall immediately forward it to the University and the University shall take an appropriate decision within a period of two weeks from the receipt of the application from the College. We hope that the University will consider :5: :5: :5: the application sympathetically. We make it clear and put the University to guard that whatever decision taken by the University, the said decision will have to be applied to all students and/or candidates who are similarly situated with that of the petitioner. . With these observations, the petition is disposed of. (D.B.BHOSALE.J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE.J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE.J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)