JUDGMENT : P.C. 1. Not on Board. Upon mentioning, taken on Board. 2. By this Petition, the petitioner, who is a student of Respondent No.2 College, has prayed for direction against the respondents to permit her to continue her Bachelor of Commerce (Financial Markets) Degree Course and allow her to appear in the ensuing 4th Semester examination to be conducted by the respondent No.2 college commencing from 21st March, 2011. The petitioner has been informed by the College vide communication dated 5th March, 2011 that she was ineligible for admission in B.Com. (FM) Degree Course, for which reason, consequent to discussion with the petitioner, her admission was transferred to B.Com. (General). 3. In the present Petition, the petitioner has already completed substantial portion of the B.Com. (FM) Degree course. In that, she has already passed out three out of six semesters with flying colours and was expected to appear in the examination of 4th Semester commencing from 21st March, 2011, but would be denied entry in the examination hall in view of the decision of the respondent No.2 communicated to her vide letter dated 5th March, 2011. The background in which such decision has been taken by the College is not stated in the said communication sent to the petitioner. The Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 College, however, has produced before us the letter sent by the Registrar of the University of Mumbai dated 3rd March, 2011 addressed to the Principal of the Respondent No.2 College. The reason can be found in the said communication. The basis for that decision is that the University after verification of the case of the petitioner found her to be ineligible to take admission in B.Com. (FM) Degree Course as she has not passed out the qualifying examination in one and the same attempt. That is the requirement of Ordinance No.O.5693 providing for eligibility criteria. The said communication reads thus: “To, The Principal, Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee’s, Guru Nanak Khalsa College of Arts, Science & Commerce, Matunga, Mumbai – 400 019. Sub :- Application of (1) Shri.Parkar Nakul Avinash & (2) Kum.Sampat Niyati Bahadur for Enrolment to the First Year B.Com (Financial Market) Course for the Academic Year 2009-2010. The said communication reads thus: “To, The Principal, Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee’s, Guru Nanak Khalsa College of Arts, Science & Commerce, Matunga, Mumbai – 400 019. Sub :- Application of (1) Shri.Parkar Nakul Avinash & (2) Kum.Sampat Niyati Bahadur for Enrolment to the First Year B.Com (Financial Market) Course for the Academic Year 2009-2010. This is to inform you that this section has received Enrolment forms from your college duly forwarded countersigned and certified by you in respect of the above named students, who has been admitted by your college for pursuing the F.Y.B.Com (Financial Market) degree course for the academic year 2009-10. In this connection, I am directed to inform you that on verifying the documents of Higher Secondary School Examination (Std.XIIth) forwarded by you of the above named students, it is observed that the said students are not eligible for admission to F.Y.B.Com (Financial Market) class in this University as per Ordinance No.O.5693. The Provisions of the ordinance O.5693 is quoted below :- O.5693 “A Candidate for being eligible for admission to the Bachelor of Commerce (Finance Markets) degree course shall have passed XII std. examination of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education or its equivalent and secured not less than 45% marks in aggregate (40% in case of reserved category) at one and the same setting. In view of the above you are therefore, requested to kindly cancel their admission of the above named students immediately and inform them accordingly. The action taken report with explanation in the matter be submitted to this office immediately. However please note that the entire responsibility of the said admissions lies with the college administration, as the University O.5693 is very clear & accordingly the candidates are not eligible for the said admissions. You are also hereby requested to state the circumstance under which Shri.Parkar Nakul Avinash & Kum.Sampat Niyati Bahadur has been admitted to the F.Y.B.Com (Financial Market) Class in your college for the academic year 2009-10, though they were not eligible for the admission to the said course as per provision of the O.5693. However the copy of this letter be not given to the concerned students while cancelling the said admissions. The Statement of Marks & Passing Certificate in Original of XIIth Std. Examination of Shri.Parkar Nakul Avinash & Kum.Sampat Niyati Bahadur are being returned herewith. Yours faithfully, Sd/- For REGISTRAR. However the copy of this letter be not given to the concerned students while cancelling the said admissions. The Statement of Marks & Passing Certificate in Original of XIIth Std. Examination of Shri.Parkar Nakul Avinash & Kum.Sampat Niyati Bahadur are being returned herewith. Yours faithfully, Sd/- For REGISTRAR. Encl: as above.” 4. As a matter of fact, the Petition deserves to be rejected at the threshold, as the petitioner has approached this Court at the eleventh hour although the communication dated 5th March, 2011 was received by her on the same day. Further, the communication plainly mentions that her admission was transferred to B.Com. (General) after discussing with her. Once she had agreed for such arrangement, the question of challenging the communication dated 5th March, 2011 would not arise. 5. Be that as it may, going by the said Ordinance, no fault can be found with the decision of the University in directing the Respondent No.2 College to discontinue the petitioner and one more student admitted by the respondent No.2 College, who were ineligible to take admission in B.Com. (FM) Degree Course. It is not a case of irregularity in granting admission, but per se illegality committed by the respondent No.2 College in giving admission to a candidate who was ineligible as per the provisions of Ordinance notified by the University. The fact that the Officials of respondent No.2 committed error at the time of granting admission to the petitioner to the said Course or for that matter, the University took unusually long time to realise that the admission given to the petitioner is illegal, cannot be the basis to legitimise the admission of the petitioner who was otherwise ineligible in terms of Ordinance No.O.5693 as she had passed out the qualifying examination with 45 % marks in more than one attempt and not in one and the same attempt. We cannot be oblivious to the fact that admission to colleges in any course is highly competitive. Giving admission to the petitioner (ineligible candidate) has obviously resulted in denial of admission to some other eligible candidate. 6. For the present, we need not enter into the controversy of whether the admission given to the petitioner and one more candidate by the respondent No.2 College in the same manner was a deliberate attempt or otherwise. That is a matter to be enquired into by the University. 6. For the present, we need not enter into the controversy of whether the admission given to the petitioner and one more candidate by the respondent No.2 College in the same manner was a deliberate attempt or otherwise. That is a matter to be enquired into by the University. The Counsel for the petitioner, however, was at pains to convince us that the petitioner be allowed to appear in the ensuing examination of the 4th Semester of B.Com. (FM) Degree Course. According to him, this Court has ample powers to direct not only the College but also the University to condone the eligibility condition qua the petitioner. For that, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad v. Karnataka University reported in AIR 1986 SC 1448 . However, after careful examination of the said decision, we find that the same is of no avail. In the said matter, the Apex Court, to do substantial justice to the party before it, exercised its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, the argument canvassed before us cannot be countenanced. Inasmuch as, this Court cannot issue direction to the authorities to act contrary to the express provision of the Statute and Ordinances issued by the University. Indeed, Counsel for the petitioner contended that in the present case also, the petitioner deserves similar indulgence as the petitioner has already completed substantial part of B.Com. (FM) Degree Course having passed out three Semesters out of six Semesters with flying colours. As aforesaid, it is not open for this Court to issue directions to the Authority to act contrary to the express provision in the University Ordinance, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Reliance is placed on another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh vs. Sanjay Gulati & Ors. reported in (1983) 3 SCC 517 . For the reason already recorded while dealing with the earlier decision of the Apex Court, even this decision does not take the matter any further for the petitioner. Reliance was lastly placed on an unreported decision of another Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, J.) was a party, in the case of Swanand Jayant Agharkar vs. The University of Mumbai & Anr. Reliance was lastly placed on an unreported decision of another Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, J.) was a party, in the case of Swanand Jayant Agharkar vs. The University of Mumbai & Anr. in Writ Petition No.9008 of 2010 decided on 21st December, 2010. The said order, however, was passed in facts and circumstances of the case and not to be treated as precedent. 8. Faced with this situation, the Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner would then approach the Chancellor of the University to condone the eligibility criteria provided in Ordinance No.O. 5693 qua the petitioner in the peculiar facts of the present case. According to the learned Counsel, the Chancellor, in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, has power to show such indulgence. We have no difficulty in accepting the request of the petitioner that the petitioner be given opportunity to explore the remedy before the Chancellor of the University. However, we make it clear that we may not be understood to mean that such power vests in the Chancellor. That is a question to be decided in appropriate proceedings. We only place on record that the petitioner undertakes to file such representation before the Chancellor by 22nd March, 2011. The only indulgence sought by the petitioner from this Court is that until the said representation is decided one way or the other, the respondents should permit the petitioner to pursue B.Com. (FM) Degree Course and be allowed to appear for the examination which is already scheduled on 21st March, 2011. We feel that this request is reasonable. However, the petitioner would be bound by the outcome of the decision of the Chancellor. We are inclined to take this view as if the decision of the Chancellor were to be in favour of the petitioner, she would suffer irreparable loss as the examination is commencing from 21st March, 2011. 9. In this backdrop, way of indulgence, we direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to allow her to appear for the 4th semester examination to be conducted by the respondent No.2 College with clear understanding that the petitioner shall not claim any equity at a later stage, but would be bound by the final decision of the Chancellor of the University. If such representation is made by the petitioner, we hope and trust that the Chancellor would take final decision on the said proposal as expeditiously as possible, preferably, before the results of the 4th Semester are declared and in any case, before the commencement of the next academic semester (5th Semester) which would commence from June, 2011. Depending on the outcome of the said decision, the petitioner would then be able to pursue her further studies. 10. We make it clear that the results of the petitioner in respect of the 4th Semester shall be kept in abeyance till the final decision of the Chancellor of the University. 11. While parting, we would like to reiterate the concern expressed by this Court in the case of Swanand Jayant Agharkar (supra), in particular, para 8 thereof. We hope and trust that the University would take necessary corrective and remedial steps to obviate similar situation in respect of other students and more particularly to arrest the granting of illegal admissions by the concerned institutions and colleges under the control of the Mumbai University. The University may also enquire into as to whether the admissions given by the respondent No.2 College to two ineligible candidates were intentional and outcome of some conspiracy in that behalf. Depending on the outcome of that enquiry, appropriate action be proceeded with. At any rate, the Officials of the respondent No.2 College who were responsible for granting admissions to such ineligible candidates, will have to be proceeded with in accordance with law for their act of commission and omission which in any case, reflects about their casual approach and dereliction of duty. Besides, we hope that the University will take firm measures to ensure that at least in future the issue of eligibility is decided in time bound manner before the expiry of the first academic year itself. It would be open to the University to enquire into the acts of commission and omission of its own Officers for delay in verification of the eligibility criteria of the ineligible students admitted by the respondent No.2 College, in particular. 12. Petition is disposed of on the above terms. 13. Copy of this order be forwarded to the Vice-Chancellor, University of Mumbai, for information and necessary action.