* 1 * W.P.(L) 1626.2011 22.8.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODG) NO. 1626 OF 2011 Harita Sunil Parab .... Petitioner V/S. Mumbai University & Ors. ..... Respondents ******* Ms. Harita Sunil Parab, petitioner present in person. Mr. Rui Rodrigues, for respondents no.1 (University of Mumbai and 2 (The Controller Examiner, Kalina University). CORAM :- Mohit S. Shah (Chief Justice), & Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. DATED :- 22nd August, 2011. P.C. :- Rule. Mr. Rodrigues, waives service of notice on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2. Respondent no.3 not being a necessary party, is permitted to be deleted. 2. The petitioner was admitted to the Nalanda Law College affiliated to respondent no.1-University of Mumbai in June, 2010. The examination for the Ist Semester was conducted in November, 2010. The result thereafter was declared on 7th February, 2011. The petitioner was declared to have passed in only 1 out of 4 subjects i.e. Labour Law. In the other three subjects i.e. Contract-I, Torts and Consumer * 2 * W.P.(L) 1626.2011 22.8.2011 Protection Law and Legal Language the petitioner was declared to have failed. The re-examination for Semester-I, as well as, examination for the IInd Semester was held in April, 2011. The petitioner was given two admission cards for these two examinations. The admission card for the IInd Semester indicated that the petitioner was required to appear in four papers on 18th, 20th, 23rd and 26th April, 2011. The admission card for Semester-I indicated four subjects as under :- PAPER SUBJECT NAME M/A OPTION SELECTED 1. LABOUR LAWS 19/04/2011 (11.00-2.00 ) 2. CONTRACT-I E 21/04/2011 (11.00-2.00) 3. TORT & CONSUMER PR E 25/04/2011 (11.00-2.00) 4. LEGAL LANGUAGE E 27/04/2011 (11.00-2.00) 3. The petitioner’s case is that when the petitioner went to the examination hall of the Government Law College, she was told that since the petitioner was shown to have obtained exemption in 3 papers (i.e. Contract Law, Torts and Consumer Protection Law and Legal Language), the petitioner was not allowed to appear for the 3 three papers. The petitioner was also informed that the list of seat numbers sent to the examination center did not indicate the petitioner’s seat number i.e. Seat Number 5350. The petitioner appearing as party-in- * 3 * W.P.(L) 1626.2011 22.8.2011 person further states that the petitioner had to appear in two examinations re-examination of Ist Semester and the regular examination of the IInd Semester and that the examination was being conducted on successive days. The petitioner protested before the Principal of the Government Law College, which was the exam centre, that she was being wrongly denied the permission to appear at the examination in the 3 papers of First L.L.B. Her protest was not heeded to and she was asked by the Principal of Law College to wait. Ultimately, when the results were declared, the petitioner was shown to have been absent on 21st, 25th and 27th April, 2011. The petitioner has therefore moved this Court for appropriate reliefs. 4. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the Deputy Registrar (Result Unit), Examination Section, University of Mumbai. The sum and substance of the affidavit is that though there was inadvertent mistake in the admission card issued to the petitioner for the repeat examination in Ist Semester, the petitioner ought to have approached the concerned authority immediately, in which case the mistake could have been rectified. The petitioner arguing in person, submits that, she did point out the mistake at the relevant time but the petitioner’s oral * 4 * W.P.(L) 1626.2011 22.8.2011 representation was not heeded to immediately and the petitioner was asked to wait. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that when the respondent-university has admitted that there was a mistake in the admission card and also in the arrangements made by the respondent-university for the repeat examination for the Ist Semester, as far as the 3 papers are concerned, the petitioner should not be made to suffer. 6. Mr. Rodrigues, learned counsel for the respondent-university submits that under the ATKT rules, a student who has failed to pass two subjects, can be allowed to keep terms for the IIIrd Semester of the second year, but since the petitioner has failed in 5 subjects ( 3 subjects in the Ist Semester and 2 in the IInd Semester) the University cannot exercise the power of permitting the petitioner to keep terms in the IIIrd Semester. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that since the petitioner has suffered for no fault of hers, the petitioner should be allowed to keep terms in the IIIrd Semester, subject to the condition that the petitioner appears for examination in all the 3 * 5 * W.P.(L) 1626.2011 22.8.2011 papers of the Ist Semester and 2 papers of the IInd Semester, which is now proposed to be held in November, 2011. The respondent- University shall admit the petitioner for the IIIrd Semester within a period of one week from today. The petitioner to furnish a copy of this order to the Principal Nalanda Law College for compliance with the above directions. 8. The petition is accordingly disposed off in the above terms. Liberty to apply in case of difficulty. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J] [CHIEF JUSTICE]