Balu Kishan Mutke v. The University of Mumbai

The learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has point out that even though the Petitioner was given admission by Respondent No.3 College in the year 2020, it is only upon the University reminding the college on 23 March 2022 that papers have been sent in respect of the students by the said college which upon scrutiny of University dated 19 July 2022, the college was informed that as per the minimum criteria, Petitioner is not eligible.

Once the Petitioner does not possess basic qualification and that he had given declaration that he has understood that he is aware of the basic qualification and also further given declaration that he posses the same, on the ground of delay on the part of the college and forwarding paper for scrutiny, no right would arise on the Petitioner. At the most Petitioner would have remedy of seeking damages against Respondent No.3 College.

It is not possible for us to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the University to continue and permit the Petitioner to sit for examination even though the Petitioner does not possess the minimum qualifying marks. This would be unfair to several students may not apply in view of specific rules prescribing minimum 45 % marks. Such directions would also be against the desirability of maintaining standard in education.

As regards order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Aarti Harish Bhandari v Shree L.r Tiwari College of Law though its Principal and Ors1 on which the Petitioner has relied upon, the Division Bench had on equity, where the Petitioner was on the verge of completing his course, was declared eligible. The Division Bench had also made it clear that the Order was passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and this order shall not be treated as a precedent in any matter. Learned counsel sought to further rely upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai v State of Gujarat,2 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court had found that was a fault of the rule-making authority in framing rules and the appellants had proceeded based on the rules and in that context the Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted directions under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Judgment observed clearly that these directions shall not be treated as a precedent. 1 LQ/BomHC/2021/2300 2011 (3) KCCRSN 180 2

Under this circumstances, what sought for by the Petitioner as regard the direction cannot be issued.

It is open to the Respondent University to initiate action against Respondent No.3- College for bringing about this position.

Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. (GAURI GODSE, J.)

(NITIN JAMDAR, J.)