Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2342 (BOM)

Aakash Kiran Vedak v. State of Maharashtra

2018-09-27

BHARATI H.DANGRE, RANJIT MORE

body2018
JUDGMENT : BHARATI H. DANGRE, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner, a student has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court praying for quashing and setting aside the action on the part of the Director, Higher Education through Nodal Officer for CET and CAP dated 18th September, 2018, thereby declaring the Petitioner ineligible for an admission to LLB (three years course) for the academic session 2018-2019. 3. The Petitioner has completed his graduation from the Mumbai University and being desirous of securing a degree in LLB applied for the CET examination of MAHLLB three years CET – 2018. The result of the said examination was declared by the competent authority/Commissioner State Common Entrance State Cell, Mumbai i.e. Respondent no.2, on 29th June, 2018. On the basis of the mark secured, the Petitioner was allotted a rank at 2069 in the Maharashtra merit list. It is also to be noted that the Petitioner participated in the said process as a Maharshtra State Candidature, and it is the case of the Petitioner that he satisfied all the norms and stipulations so to avail a seat from the said category. After the CAP round, the Petitioner was alloted Vidya Prasarak Mandal, Thane's VPM's Thane Municipal Council Law College, Thane, by Respondent no.2 and by the said communication he was informed that he was provisionally admitted to the 1st year of LLB (three year course) for the academic year 2018-2019 in the second round of online admission process based on his CET performance. It was also directed that the candidate should report to the college on or before 19th September, 2018. After this when the Petitioner approached the college seeking admission, he was informed that he cannot be granted admission as his case was different and it was further informed that the matter will be referred to the competent authority i.e. Respondent no.2. The Petitioner, therefore, approached Respondent no.2 and was informed by Respondent no.2 by communication dated 18th September, 2018 that he was not eligible for an admission to LLB (three years course) on the basis of his final year marks since he was an old pattern candidate where the degree has been awarded and the class is given on the basis of final year marks. The Petitioner has placed on record the said email addressed by the competent authority to the Principal of the College in which the Petitioner was awarded a seat and it reads thus: “Respected Principal, We have gone through marks memo/marks list of the candidate. The candidate has filled the marks of all years since he was not eligible on the basis of the final year marks. The candidate is old pattern candidate where in the degree has been awarded and the class given on the basis of the final year marks. The candidate is not eligible since University has awarded him pass class on the basis of final year marks 256/600 = 42.66%. The mail is also sent to the candidate. Regards. Office of the Commissioner State CET Cell, Maharashtra State.” The grievance of the Petitioner revolves around the said communication. 4. The learned Counsel Mr. Warunjikar appearing for the Petitioner would submit that Respondent authority had erred in holding that the Petitioner belongs to the old pattern and he would submit that the Petitioner has completed his first and second year from the new course and the third year from the old course from Mumbai University. Mr. Warunjikar invited our attention to the criteria prescribed by the admission authorities for 'Maharashtra State Candidature' and he would submit that the eligibility criteria prescribed, required a candidate to possess 45% marks in the graduate course and this was clarified to be 45% for all the parts of the degree examination taken together and according to Mr. Warunjikar the aggregate total of degree examination marks of the Petitioner comes out to be 59.41% and therefore his specific submission is that Respondent no.2 has not adhered to its own brochure and has erred in disqualifying the Petitioner from seeking an admission in the LLB course. 5. The Respondent Mumbai University, is represented by Mr. Rui Rodrigues whereas Mr. S.S. Patwardhan represent the Respondent no.2. The Respondents i.e. namely Respondent nos.2 and 4 have attempted to shift the onus of the decision on each other and it is specific submission of the competent authority that in view of the marking pattern adopted by Mumbai University, the Petitioner was not found to be eligible. Whereas Mr. Rui Rodrigues whereas Mr. S.S. Patwardhan represent the Respondent no.2. The Respondents i.e. namely Respondent nos.2 and 4 have attempted to shift the onus of the decision on each other and it is specific submission of the competent authority that in view of the marking pattern adopted by Mumbai University, the Petitioner was not found to be eligible. Whereas Mr. Rodrigues would submit that the University Rules vary from course to course and since the Petitioner was an old pattern candidate, where the degree has been awarded on the basis of final year marks, and the said marks of the candidate are considered to hold him qualified and eligible. 6. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, we have perused the Petition along with its annexure and also considered the submission advanced on behalf of the respective Counsels. The State Common Entrance Cell, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, who conducts the admission procedure for the LLB degree course has published an information brochure for Centralize Admission Process (CAP) for the first year of three year degree course in LLB for the academic year 2018-2019. The said brochure contains the rules which regulate the admission to the first year full time profession under graduate law course (three years and five years). The said rules are known as Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Education Institutions (Regulation of admissions would full time professional under graduate law course) Rules, 2017. They have come into force with effect from 5th May, 2017. The said rules set out the relevant information about invitation of online applications for admission, preparation of merit list, distribution of seats, details of reservations, various stages and grounds of (CAP) centralize admission procedure etc. Perusal of the said rules would reveal that for the Maharashtra State candidates, the eligibility is prescribed for the Rule 7.2 prescribes the eligibility criteria for LLB (three years degree course) which includes the criteria for upper age limit. Perusal of the said rules would reveal that for the Maharashtra State candidates, the eligibility is prescribed for the Rule 7.2 prescribes the eligibility criteria for LLB (three years degree course) which includes the criteria for upper age limit. The relevant eligibility criteria with which we are concerned reads thus: “The candidate should be a Graduate and or Post Graduate in any faculty/discipline of knowledge of any University in Maharashtra established by an act of Parliament or by the State Legislature or an equivalent National Institution recognized as a Deemed to be University or Foreign University recognized as equivalent to the status of an Indian university by an Authority competent to declare equivalence, with minimum 45% Marks in aggregate for Open Category candidates (i.e. 45% Marks for all the parts of the Degree Examination taken together), and 40% Marks in aggregate in degree examination in all parts of the Degree Examination for candidates belonging to SC and ST Category belonging to State of Maharashtra only. (Ref : Bar Council of India – 2008 : Part V-5 (a).” Perusal of the said Rule would reveal that in order to secure an admission in the first year LLB course, a candidate should be graduate and/or postgraduate in any faculty, discipline of knowledge of any University in Maharashtra or institution and an open category candidate must have scored minimum 45% marks in aggregate. This is further clarified by stipulating that 45% marks for all the parts of the degree examinations taken together. The requirement prescribed is of 40% marks in case of candidates belonging to SC and ST category. 7. The Petitioner has passed the degree examination from Respondent no.4 in the stream of Arts. It is the case of the Petitioner that as far as the first two years of the graduation, he had appeared in the new pattern course prescribed by the Mumbai University, whereas in his final year i.e. the third year, he was in the old course of Respondent no.4 University. It is the case of the Petitioner that as far as the first two years of the graduation, he had appeared in the new pattern course prescribed by the Mumbai University, whereas in his final year i.e. the third year, he was in the old course of Respondent no.4 University. The candidature of the Petitioner for admission in LLB course is rejected on the ground that the Petitioner is an old pattern candidate where the degree has been awarded and the class is given on the basis of final year marks and in the final year he has scored 256 marks out 600 marks and the percentage is work out as 42.66%, which is less than the prescribed eligibility criteria of 45%. The Petitioner do not dispute that he had undertaken his first and second year of criteria from the new pattern whereas his final year is from the old pattern where the class or degree is awarded by taken into consideration only the final year marks. Perusal of the rule of eligibility requires a candidate to possess 45% marks for all the parts of degree examination together. The rule do not specify whether candidate is from old or new pattern since a candidate become eligible for admission to LLB degree course if he has completed his graduation or post-graduation any faculty/discipline of knowledge of any University in Maharashtra established by an Act of parliament or by State Legislature or National Institution recognized as deemed University and therefore instead of prescribing a criteria prevalent in Mumbai University as to old/ new course, the rules prescribed that a candidate must possess 45% marks for all the parts of degree examination taken together. Complying said eligibility criteria, the marks of the Petitioner of the three years i.e. first year B.A., second year B.A. and the final year B.A. will have to be aggregated and total of his marks is 2020 out of 3400 and the percentage of the mark is 59.41%. We find substance in the submission of Mr. Warunjikar that if the percentage of the marks of the Petitioner in aggregate is considered, it comes out to be 59.41% which is exceeding 45% and accordingly eligibility criteria prescribed by the rules which requires attaining a benchmark 45% of all the parts of the degree examination taken together is satisfied by the Petitioner. 8. Warunjikar that if the percentage of the marks of the Petitioner in aggregate is considered, it comes out to be 59.41% which is exceeding 45% and accordingly eligibility criteria prescribed by the rules which requires attaining a benchmark 45% of all the parts of the degree examination taken together is satisfied by the Petitioner. 8. We therefore conclude that the Petitioner is eligible in terms of the eligibility criteria framed by the rules governing the admission to the first year LLB examination. Our conclusion is further 45% by a note which found on the part of the said information brochure which read to the following effect: : Important Note : (i) Aggregate marks means the Grand Total of marks obtained by the candidate at the diploma/degree on which the class/grade is awarded by the Board/University. Conjoint reading of the Rule and the note leads to an irresistible conclusion that possessing 45% marks which is the eligibility criteria for securing admission to first year LLB course would require an aggregate of the marks obtained by the candidate at the degree level course. The Petitioner who has scored 59.41% of marks in aggregate for all the three years of his graduation, satisfies the eligibility criteria prescribed by the rules and we are of the clear opinion that deprivation of the Petitioner from the process of admission is erroneous. 9. Ultimately if the intent the rule of possessing minimum marks is examined, the requirement that a candidate must satisfy a particular eligibility level in terms of marks at the graduation/post-graduation level in order to hold him eligible for securing an admission into LLB course. The rules aims to fix the minimum level inform 45% of marks and the marks are to be counted by taking into consideration the aggregate score of the candidate throughout his degree course which includes first, second and third year of a degree course. If this is the object which the Rule seeks to achieve, we fail to understand the reasoning of Respondent no.2 in holding the Petitioner ineligible only on the ground that in the new course of the Bombay University, a class/degree is to be awarded a candidate only on the basis of the marks in the final year examination. We see no logical justification in the said restriction and therefore we are inclined to allow the Writ Petition. We see no logical justification in the said restriction and therefore we are inclined to allow the Writ Petition. We quash and set aside the communication issued by Respondent no.3 dated 18th September, 2018 and direct the Respondent authorities to admit the Petitioner in terms of his ranking secured by him in the CET examination conducted for the admission to LLB (three year degree course) for the academic year 2018-2019. 10. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.