1 Wp3533-10 dmt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3533 OF 2010 Aparna Vidur Mahajan. ... Petitioner. V/s. The Co-ordinator (SET) Maharashtra State Eligibility Test, Pune & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. A.V. Anturkar i/by S.B. Deshmukh for petitioner. Mr. Girish Kulkarni with Ms. Swati Deshmukh, Smt. M.G. Kulkarni for the respondent nos.1 & 2. Mr. Rui Rodrigues for respondent no. 3. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE : 31st JANUARY, 2011. P.C. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Kulkarni waives service for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Rodrigues waives service for respondent no. 3. With consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner who was allowed to appear for the SET examination and who has passed out the said examination has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to give the passing certificate to her. 2 Wp3533-10 3. The U.G.C., appointed the Pune University for undertaking the SET examination in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner has filled in her form and she was permitted by the Pune University to appear in the SET examination. The result was placed on the website and she is declared passed in the SET examination but the passing certificate has not been given to her. The reason for not giving her the certificate is that the petitioner was not eligible to appear in the said examination as she has obtained less than 55% marks in Master’s Decree and eligibility criteria is that the candidate should have passed Master’s Degree with at least 55% of marks without any grace marks. Since the petitioner had obtained 54.63% marks in the Master’s Degree which is below 55 %, it was found that she was not eligible to appear for the SET examination and that is how the result is held up. 4. Mr. Anturkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that at the time of filling in her form, she has already submitted the correct marks obtained by her in the Master’s Degree. It is not that she has committed a fraud. He submitted that she has already appeared and passed out the said examination and, therefore, the respondents are estopped from withholding her passing certificate. Mr. Rodrigues, the learned counsel appearing for the U.G.C., states since the petitioner was not eligible as she has obtained less than 55% marks, that her result is not declared. He submitted that the Nodal agency i.e., the University of Pune should have been careful before enrolling a student for the purpose of the said examination. Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel appearing for the Pune University submits that with a view to see that the scrutiny of examination forms may not take more time, 3 Wp3533-10 without full scrutiny students were enrolled and permitted to appear for the examination subject to the eligibility criteria. He further submits that it is true that the petitioner has not committed any fraud and has disclosed all the necessary information. Mr. Kulkarni, however, admits the fact that the examination form of the petitioner was accepted and thereafter she was permitted to appear for the examination. 5. In our view, the petitioner having been permitted to appear for the examination and having passed the examination, she is entitled to get her passing certificate from the respondents. It is admitted that the petitioner has not committed any fraud. If the student is required to undergo studies and preparation for the examination and after making appropriate attempt the students passes such a competitive examination, it would not be proper on the part of the respondents to deny her her passing certificate. In the case of Shri Krishnan vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, (1976) 1 SCC page 311, the Supreme Court has held that in case a candidate is not guilty of suggestio falsi then the authority is estopped from taking action even on the ground that the candidate was not eligible in the matter of getting admission. Since it is not in dispute that the petitioner has not suppressed anything and after submitting necessary documents she was permitted to appear for the examination, in our view, it would not be proper on the part of the respondents to deny her passing certificate. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts on record, this petition is allowed. 4 Wp3533-10 The respondents are directed to grant passing certificate on the basis of marks in case she is found to have passed the said examination. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that individual result was not declared but result was declared on net, but since the petitioner now wants to undergo further studies, she requires such a certificate. The delay is also explained by filing separate affidavit. 7. It is clarified that this order will not be treated as precedent as it is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)