1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 425 OF 2010 Devang D. Parmar. .. Petitioner. Vs. University of Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. Devang D. Parmar, petitioner in person. Mr. R.A. Rodrigues for respondent nos. 1 & 2. Mr. J.S. Chandnani for respondent no. 3. CORAM : J. N. PATEL & C.L. PANGARKAR, JJ DATE : 26TH FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C. : Heard the petitioner in person and the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner who is the student prosecuting his suties with respondent no. 1 institution is pursuing 3rd year Degree Law Course has filed this petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent nos. 1 and 3 to give him admission and allow him to appear for examination of semester 5 and semester 6 starting from 1.4.2010 and for similar ancillary reliefs by way of interim orders. 2 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has successfully completed his 1st Year LL.B. consisting of semester 1 and 2 but could not clear second year LL.B., examination. According to the petitioner, he could not clear one subject in semester 3 and two subjects in semester 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he received the answer sheet after much delay and when he examined the same he found that valuation was not done properly and, therefore, he applied for revaluation on 7.10.2009, the petitioner was informed by respondent no. 2 vide their letter dated 23.11.2009 that there was no un-assesed part in the answer book on the subject of criminology. As the petitioner was not satisfied being confident, he again approached the Vice Chancellor and Public Relations Officer of respondent no. 1 through his letters addressed to them. It is on 3.2.2010 the petitioner received a letter from the respondent no. 2 annexing the result of the revaluation in the subject of criminology. Having passed the subject of Criminology, the petitioner approached the Public Relatons Officer of respondent University and requested him to grant admission in Third Year LL.B. Course for the academic year 2009-2010 and he was recommended for being admitted in 3rd LL.B. Course. Subsequently, the respondent no. 1 recalled its recommendations by letter dated 6.2.2010 on having found that the attendance of the petitioner was not as per the norms and, therefore, the earlier letter dated 4.2.2010 recommending his admission consequent to the revaluation of the result came to be 3 recalled. The petitioner made frantic attempt to get admission to the Third Year LL.B. Course for the academic year 2009-2010 but as the same was not considered, he has filed this petition. 3. On having served with the notice, respondent no. 3 has filed a short affidavit in reply and it is their contention that the petitioner passed first year LL.B. from Rizvi Law College, Bandra in May 2008 and took admission to Respondent No. 3 College in the second year LL.B., during the Academic year 2008-09. The petitioner appeared for the semester III LL.B. Examination in November 2008 but could clear only one paper i.e. Administrative Law and failed in all the other three papers. He reappeared for Semester III examination in April 2009 and passed two papers (i.e. Family Law II and Transfer of Property) and failed in Company Law paper. In May 2009, he appeared for semester IV LL.B., examination and passed in two papers i.e., Jurisprudence and Contract II and failed in other two papers i.e. Land Law and Criminology. So at the end of second year he had failed in three papers and passed in five papers out of eight papers. Therefore, as per the Ordinance governing the case of the petitioner (ATCK Rules of the University), he could not clear three papers out of eight papers at the end of the second year in order to become himself eligible for admision to the IIIrd year. 4. According to the respondents, as the petitioner has passed 4 only five papers against the permissible six papers, he could not secure admission to the IIIrd Year in the academic year 2009-10. It appears that the petitioner thereafter applied for revaluation in the subject of criminology and secured 45 marks and was declared passed on 3.2.2010 because of which the petitioner became eligible for being admitted to the Third Year but as he was short of attendance, the University has recalled its recommendation for admission. 5. It is the contention of the Respondent No. 3 College that the University has closed admission to the LL.B. Course in the academic year 2009-10 on 31.8.2009 and by the time the petitioner approached them for admission to Third year LL.B. Course in February 2010, first term was over and Semester V examinations were completed and the results were also declared and, therefore, at the fag end of academic year as the final examination, i.e. Semester VI examination are set to commence on April 12,2010 and the last date for filing examination form for Semester V and Semester VI examinations are over and therefore the petitioner cannot be given admission as sought. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not given any practical training for the final year LL.B. He will be required to undergo the same as well as comply with norms of attendance before he could be permitted to appear for the examination in April, 2010 and, therefore, no case is made out by the petitioner. 5 5. The petitioner submitted that it was none of his fault as he was declared passed in the subject of criminology in the revaluation after much delay and the blame lies on the respondent University. He submitted that he has been persistent in making representations through letters to the University for revaluation of his papers but the officials of the University did not respond in time and after much persuasion he was successful in getting his paper revalued and therefore, declared passed in February, 2010. The petitioner submitted that on his own he has undergone practical training and has also prepared note book of practical training which can be considered by the respondent institution as sufficient compliance of the requirement and that he has also studied on his own to make up for los of attendance and is confident enough that he will pass if he is allowed to appear for Semesters 5 and 6 in ensuing examination which is to be conducted in April, 2010 and pass his LL.B. Part III examination and, therefore, he should be given an opportunity to prove himself by directing the respondents to admit him and permit him to appear for LL.B. Part III examination. 6. Mr. Rodrigues, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent University submitted that though it can be said that there was some delay on the part of the University in dealing with the petitioner's case but then, nothing prevented the petitioner from taking provisional admission in respondent no. 3 institution which he did not 6 avail otherwise he could have easily complied with the practical training as well as the requirement of attendance so as to enable him to attend LL.B. Semester 5 and 6 of LL.B. Part III examination. It is submitted that petitioner's case cannot be considered for condonation of attendance well as requirement of practical training which is mandatory and also an essential part of curriculum as laid down by the Bar of Council of India and, therefore, the petitioner has no case. The petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the case of the petitioner. It is true that revaluation in the subject of criminology was delayed by the respondent University but as submitted by Mr. Rodrigues, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent university, nothing prevented the petitioner from approaching the college for provisional admission. The petitioner unfortunately did not avail the opportunity which was available to him in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the petitioner now cannot claim that he has a right to appear for Semester 5 and 6 of the final year LL.B. Examination due in April, 2010 as the petitioner would not be able to comply with the requirement of attendance and for want of having undergone practical training as required in the curriculum. In our view, it will be proper for the petitioner to take his chance in November, 2010 by seeking admission in respondent no. 3 institution. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot 7 be granted. The petition is dismissed. ( J. N. Patel, J) (C.L. PANGARKAR, J)