Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court has recently observed that students applying for admission should be informed about their ineligibility before the completion of the course, and it would not be fair to intimate the ineligibility at the fag end of the course.

“We therefore, observe that the University should inform the students about their ineligibility before allotting the seat in any college or at least before completion of Ist semester. It would not be fair to inform the student about his/her ineligibility at the fag end of the course since by then the student would have invested much time, money and energy in completion of the course.,” the order reads.

The division bench of the high court, comprising Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain, was hearing a petition filed by Rohan Ravindra Thatte, who was declared ineligible for the LLB Course by Mumbai University in his 6th Semester.

Thatte appeared in the State Common Law Entrance Test in July 2021 for enrolling in the 3-year LLB Course.

Thatte cleared his B.A. exam with 45.15% in April 2020 and appeared for the CET exam for the academic year 2021-22, being declared a successful candidate in the "open category" on October 29, 2021.

The petitioner submitted all the mark sheets of his BA to the college, which were later forwarded to Mumbai University for verification in May 2022.

Based on the documents furnished by the petitioner, he was given admission for the academic year 2021-2022.

In December 2022, Mumbai University informed the petitioner that he was ineligible for taking admission to the LL.B. course due to a lower percentage. The petitioner then approached the high court challenging this communication.

On March 6, 2023, and November 24, 2023, the high court permitted the petitioner to appear for semester III, IV, and V exams. The bench was informed that the petitioner was already in his 6th semester.

Advocates Vikram Walawalkar and Arjun Kadam, representing Thatte, contended that Mumbai University was not justified in treating him as ineligible after the completion of the 2nd semester and after having cleared CET and been allotted the seat.

Advocates Gaurav Sharma and Siddharth Shitole, representing Mumbai University, argued that the petitioner was ineligible due to a 1.2% shortfall.

Mumbai University relied on an ordinance to justify Thatte's ineligibility.

However, Mumbai University did not dispute the fact that the petitioner was informed about his ineligibility only after the allotment of the seat and that too at the end of the 2nd semester out of 5 semesters.

The bench noted that the ordinance prescribes eligibility for the exams being conducted by Mumbai University, whereas, in the petitioner’s case, it was the State of Maharashtra that conducted the exam.

Therefore, the bench quashed the communication of Mumbai University to Thatte and directed the university to declare the results of Thatte, which were withheld.

Case title: Rohan Ravindra Thatte vs University of Mumbai