1 WPL2545.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION kj WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2545 OF 2010 Shalaka Suryakant Shetti )..Petitioner Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. )..Respondents ---- Mr.Pankaj J Das for the petitioner. Mr.M.V. More AGP for the Respondent nos.1 & 2. Ms.S.Alemao for the respondent no.4. ---- Coram : P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ Date : 23.11. 2010. PC 1 Rule. Learned AGP waives service for respondent nos.1 & 2. Though served, none appears for the respondent no.3. Ms. Alemao appears for respondent no.4. 2 Considering the urgency in the matter, the matter is taken up for hearing forthwith with the consent of the concerned Advocates. 2 WPL2545.10.sxw 3 The petitioner appeared for the final Bsc examination in April-2008 and subject to the out-come of the result, she got herself admitted in MCA course enrolled with respondent no.4. Subsequently, when the Bsc result was declared, she was declared as failed. Since the petitioner was required to pay considerable amount towards fees and because she was declared as failed, she withdrew her admission as she could not have proceeded further in view of the failure in the Bsc examination. The petitioner thereafter applied for revaluation of the marks and it is an admitted position that she was ultimately declared as passed. She was given appropriate mark-sheet treating her as passed in the Bsc examination. 4 By way of this petition, the petitioner states that for no fault on her part, she is required to suffer as even though she has secured admission in MCA course, because of the wrong decision of the university, she was declared as failed. Learned Advocate for the petitioner also relied upon the decision given by this court in 3 WPL2545.10.sxw Writ Petition (L) No.2344 of 2010 on 26th October, 2010, by which this Court directed the authorities to enroll the student in the said institution. 5 We have heard the learned Advocates appearing in the matter. It is required to be noted that the petitioner was enrolled by the respondent no.4/institution for MCA course. At that time, the result of the Bsc examination was not declared. Subsequently, she was declared as failed, which decision was ultimately revised by the University after re-assessing her answer-sheet. In view of the same, the petitioner is not required to suffer as there was no fault on her part in any manner. Considering the aforesaid aspect and considering the order of this Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 2344 of 2010, this petition is allowed. Respondent no.4 is directed to enroll the petitioner in the MCA course. Petitioner to pay required tuition fees within a period of one week from today. If any additional seat is required to be sanctioned, respondent no.2 is directed to sanction the same. This order will not be treated as a precedent and the respondent no.2 shall sanction the additional 4 WPL2545.10.sxw seat as a special case. Considering the fact that such problem may not arise in future. We suggest the director to consider as to whether admission of the student may not be cancelled in MCA course till revaluation is decided by the University. Similarly, University is directed that the re-valuation of the examination papers should be done at the earliest and preferably within a period of 15 days from receiving such applications. Copy of this order also may be sent to the University -concerned for their future guidelines. Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. (P.B.MAJMUDAR,J) (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J)