ssp 1 WP 807 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.807 OF 2011 Aniket Madhukar Kamble .....Petitioner versus The University of Mumbai and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.S.M.Oka i/by Mr.Sagar Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr.R.A.Rodrigues, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.L.H.Patil & Mr.S.L.Suryawanshi, for respondent No.3. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE: 4th MARCH, 2011. P.C. : 1. Rule. Mr.Rodrigues waives services of rule for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.Patil waives service of rule for respondent No.3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. Petitioner was enrolled by the respondent No.3 College in the first year for Banking Insurance Course. Petitioner paid requisite fees towards admission of first semester in the year 2009. Petitioner passed first semester in November 2009 and thereafter, he was enrolled to the second semester in November 2009. Petitioner also passed second semester of F.Y.B.I., in April, 2010. However, mark sheet/result of second semester is not declared qua the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner ssp 2 WP 807 of 2011 that as per the directions of the respondent-University, respondent No.3 College decided to cancel his admission on the ground that he was wrongly enrolled in the first semester of the said course in September, 2009, as he has secured 39.83% and not 40% in the H.S.C. Examination. It is not in dispute that as per the criterion prescribed, petitioner could have been enrolled in the first year of the said course only if he has secured 40% in the H.S.C. Examination. 3. On behalf of respondent No.3 College, an affidavit-in-reply has been filed. It is pointed out that by mistake the admission was given to the petitioner and in future, they will not commit any such mistake and will not enroll any student who is having less marks and contrary to the eligibility criterion. 4. It is required to be noted that petitioner has not suppressed any fact while taking admission for the said course and has submitted necessary mark sheets while securing the admission. Once respondent No. 3 College has enrolled the petitioner, he cannot be allowed to suffer even though Management was negligent in enrolling him for the said course. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that petitioner has already completed one and half years course and 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 3 WP 807 of 2011 Banking Insurance Course on the basis of his admission in the respondent No.3. College. The impugned decision of the respondent Nos.1 University cancelling the admission of the petitioner, is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent, with no order as to costs. ( A.A.SAYED, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )