ssp 1 WP 9008 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9008 of 2010 Swanand Jayant Agharkar .....Petitioner V/s. The University of Mumbai and Anr. ..... Respondents Mr.S.M.Oak i/by Mr.Sagar Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr.R.A.Rodrigues, for respondent No.1. Mr.N.V.Walawalkar, Senior Advocate with Mr.S.M.Sabrad, for respondent No.2. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : 21st DECEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Rule. Mr.Rodrigues waives service of rule for respondent No.1 and Mr.Walawalkar, waives service of rule for respondent No.2. With the consent of the Advocates, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner who is pursuing course of B.Sc. (Information Technology), has challenged the order passed by the respondent No.1 University, by which the admission of the petitioner for the academic year 2009-10 was cancelled. It is prayed that petitioner may be permitted to complete the said course. 3. The petitioner has secured 43.67% marks in the H.S.C. ssp 2 WP 9008 of 2010 Examination. It is the requirement under Ordinance O.5051 that for open category, a student can be enrolled for the said course only if he/she has secured minimum 45% marks in aggregate in the H.S.C. In spite of the same, respondent No.2 College, enrolled the petitioner for the said course. The petitioner was thereafter, allowed to appear for the first and second semester, which he has cleared by securing 66.71% and 67.70% marks respectively. The petitioner was also permitted even to undergo second year course. But, at the time when the petitioner was to appear for the 3rd Semester, he was prevented from appearing in the semester on the ground that he was wrongly given admission at the initial stage. The respondent No.1 University has cancelled the admission of the petitioner on the ground that he was not eligible for the said course since he has secured less than 45% marks . It is the aforesaid decision of the respondent- University, which is challenged in this petition. 4. It is required to be noted that the petitioner had not suppressed anything at the time of securing admission, nor he has secured admission by way of fraud. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that once the petitioner is enrolled by the respondent No.2 college and when he is allowed to continue the course upto 3rd semester, it is highly unjust on the part of the respondent-University to cancel the admission of the petitioner. ssp 3 WP 9008 of 2010 5. Since it is not in dispute that the petitioner could not have been legally enrolled in the said course by the respondent No.2 College, at the relevant time, the respondent No.2 College was asked to explain its conduct and to point out as to why directions should not be given to cancel the affiliation of respondent No.2 College. On behalf of respondent No.2, learned counsel has tendered affidavit-in-reply. In the said reply, it is admitted by the College that the admission was given to the petitioner at the relevant time, even though he was not eligible as per the criterion prescribed. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that it is the case of genuine mistake on the part of the College and by oversight, the admission was given to the petitioner, for which sincere apology is tendered. In the reply, it is also stated that the respondent No. 2 undertakes before the Court that henceforth in future, they will not commit any such mistake and will only enroll students who are eligible for the courses. It is also stated in the affidavit that except the above mistake, the College has not committed any such irregularities and this was only first and last mistake which the College has committed. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that considering the undertaking given by the College and the fact that so many students are taking education, the Court may not pass any order disaffiliating the college. We accept the say of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, with a direction that the ssp 4 WP 9008 of 2010 College should be more careful in future, so that genuine students who are eligible to secure admission for the said course, may not require to suffer if ineligible student is given admission. 6. So far as present petition is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that necessary mark sheets were submitted to the college at the time of securing admission. It is not the case that the petitioner has secured admission in a fraudulent manner or by suppressing any fact. It is required to be noted that the petitioner was allowed to continue the said course and he has successfully completed first year. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 University states that he has taken instructions in the matter and submitted that the Court may pass appropriate order as deemed fit. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 University submitted that considering the fact that this was the solitary mistake committed by the College, the University has decided not to cancel the affiliation of the college with a rider that if such action is committed in future, the affiliation of the college will be cancelled. The University may act accordingly in this behalf. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner has already completed one year course and he was not instrumental in securing admission by way of fraud, we direct that the petitioner may be allowed to continue and complete the said course of ssp 5 WP 9008 of 2010 B.Sc (IT), as now at this stage, petitioner will not get admission elsewhere and entire year will be wasted. The impugned decision dated 17-09-2010 taken by the University is quashed and set aside. It is however, clarified that this order should not be treated as a precedent in any other case. 8. Before parting with the judgment, this Court would like to emphasize upon the fact that various institutions are enrolling students who are ineligible for admission and if enrollment/admission is given to a student who is not eligible, then the eligible candidate would be deprived from the admission. In the instant case, the University woke up after a considerable time when the petitioner has completed one year. The University should take prompt decision moment it is noticed that wrong student has been admitted. The Universities are therefore, directed to take appropriate steps against the Institutes/Colleges who are enrolling ineligible students for any course. The Universities are directed to issue necessary directions/circulars to the affiliated colleges and by giving public notice in a newspapers that any Institute/college who enroll students without verifying eligibility criterion, shall face consequence of disaffiliation at the hands of the Universities. The Universities are directed to scrupulously monitor this aspect and if such irregularities are found in future, they should not hesitate in taking action against the erring colleges. In the matter of education, the Institutes/colleges are required to act in an ssp 6 WP 9008 of 2010 objective, honest and impartial manner. No student is permitted to be enrolled when he/she is not eligible for a particular course and the concerned Colleges should take appropriate care and scrutiny before giving admission to such student. 9. Since learned counsel for respondent No.2 has fairly admitted its mistake and has given undertaking that in future they will not commit any such mistake, we do not propose to take any action against the said college. 10. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. ( MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )