Full Judgement
Bombay High Court
Anoushka Tusharkumar Desai vs State Of Maharashtra And 3 Ors on 8 February, 2024
Author: A. S. Chandurkar
Bench: A. S. Chandurkar
2024:BHC-OS:2146-DB
Tauseef 11-WP.L.20458.2022.J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.20458 OF 2022
Anoushka Tusharkumar Desai
Aged about 20 years, Indian Inhabitant,
Occu.: Student, residing at 3, Aashirwad,
51, Vallabh Nagar, Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai - 400 056. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through the Government Pleaders' Office,
Bombay High Court, Mumbai.
2. University of Mumbai,
Having its address at Dr. Babasaheb
Ambedkar Bhavan, Vidyanagari, Santacruz
(East), Mumbai - 400098.
3. The Deputy Registrar, Admission
Enrollment, Eligibility and Migration
Certificate Unit, University of Mumbai,
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Bhavan,
Vidyanagari, Santacruz (East),
Mumbai - 400098.
4. Pravin Gandhi College of Law
Having its address at Mithibhai College
Campus, 8th Floor, Bhaktivedanta Swami
Marg, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai - 400056. ...Respondents
_________
Ms. Anita Castelino a/w. Ms. Namrata Agashe, Ms. Sudha Dwivedi Ms.
Vinsha Acharya, Mr. Ranjit Agaste, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. P. H. Kantharia, G.P. a/w. Mr. Abhay L. Patki, Addl.G.P. for
Respondent No.1 (State).
Mr. Gaurav Sharma i/b. Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni, Advocate for
Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Mr. Swaraj Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
__________
1 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 15:47:43 :::
Tauseef 11-WP.L.20458.2022.J.doc
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR,
JITENDRA JAIN, J.J.
RESERVED ON : 31st JANUARY 2024.
PRONOUNCED ON : 8th FEBRUARY 2024.
Judgment:- (Per Jitendra Jain, J.)
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the Petitioner seeks to challenge the communications dated 3 rd
December 2021 and dated 4th April 2022 of Respondent No.2-University,
whereby the Petitioner has been declared as ineligible for enrolling and
completing her 5 year LLB course.
2. Narrative of the events:-
(i) The Petitioner is a resident of Mumbai and aspires to pursue a law
career.
(ii) On 5th July 2020, the Petitioner cleared her International
Baccalaureate (I.B.), which is equivalent to 10+2 course. The
Petitioner appeared in 6 subjects and obtained average 60% marks,
which is equivalent to 22 points as per I.B. standard.
(iii) The Petitioner aspiring to pursue a law career applied for State
Common Entrance Test of Respondent No.1-State for 5 year degree
course in law beginning from academic year 2020-21. The
Information Brochure issued by Respondent No.1-State CET Cell
provided in paragraph 7.2 eligibility criteria for LLB-5 years course.
2 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 15:47:43 :::
Tauseef 11-WP.L.20458.2022.J.doc
The eligibility criteria was classified based on the State to which
the candidate belongs. Part-A provided for Maharashtra State
Candidature Candidates, Part-B provided for All India Candidature
Candidates, Part-C provided for Jammu and Kashmir migrant
candidature candidate and Part-D provided for children of
NRI/OCI/PIO/CIWGC/Foreign National Students. The Petitioner
applied for eligibility criteria as per Part-A being applicable for
Maharashtra State Candidature Candidates.
(iv) On 8th October 2020, Respondent No.1 issued a notification under
Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Education Institutions
(Regulations of Admissions and Fees) Act, 2015, for providing
eligibility conditions and requirements for admission to various
courses. Serial No.6 of the said notification provided eligibility
conditions and requirements for admission to undergraduate
course in law. The said eligibility conditions and requirements are
pari-materia to what was stated in the Information Brochure
referred to above.
(v) On 11th October 2020, Respondent No.1 conducted CET for LLB 5
year course and declared results of the said test on 27 th November
2020. The Petitioner scored 77 out of 150 marks in CET. The score
card issued by the Respondent No.1 stated that the score is valid
for admission to LLB 5 year course for the academic year 2020-21,
3 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 15:47:43 :::
Tauseef 11-WP.L.20458.2022.J.doc
subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria mentioned in Information
Brochure published and displayed on the website, the said
Information Brochure has been referred by us herein-above.
(vi) Based on Centralised Admission Process (CAP), the Petitioner was
allotted admission in Respondent No.4-College. In the application
form, the Petitioner gave all the information including educational
details, wherein she mentioned that she has scored 59.83% from
I.B. board in Science Stream. It is important to note that the table
wherein details were to be filed does not have any column to
specify the points as per I.B. course but what was required to be
filled was only the percentage which the Petitioner filled as
59.83%.
(vii) On 31st March 2021, the Respondent No.1 issued a provisional
allotment letter allotting seat to the Petitioner to take admission in
Respondent No.4-College. The said allotment letter states that
provisional admission is given based on documents uploaded by
the Petitioner and subject to scrutiny and validation with original
documents by the admitting college. The Petitioner was allotted a
seat in the 'Minority' category. The said provisional allotment
letter also contains instructions to be followed by the Principal of
the admitting law college.
(viii)On 15th July 2021, Respondent No.4 forwarded the enrollment
4 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 15:47:43 :::
Tauseef 11-WP.L.20458.2022.J.doc
form along with supporting document of all the students for
admission to law degree course for academic year 2020-2021 to
Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
(ix) On 12th August 2021, Respondent No.1 informed Respondent No.4
about admission of 120 students to 5 year LLB course in
Respondent No.4-College. The copy of the said letter along with
the list of admission certified by Respondent No.1 was annexed
and also marked to Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
(x) On 3rd December 2021, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 addressed a letter
to Respondent No.4 informing that the Petitioner is not fulfilling
the requirement of enrollment for pursuing 3 year degree course of
LLB for the reason that as per I.B. Board circular, she requires 24
credit points.
(xi) However, on 16th December 2021, Respondent No.1 granted
approval of provisional admission granted in Respondent No.4
institute for LLB 5 year course for academic year 2020-2021. The
said approval states that on the basis of the verification report
submitted by the concerned Authority, the Authority is satisfied as
to the correctness of eligibility and data of provisionally admitted
students and have decided to accord its approval to students for
the academic year 2020-2021 in Respondent No.4-College. It
further states that if information given is found incorrect or illegal
5 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 15:47:43 :::
Tauseef 11-WP.L.20458.2022.J.doc
or irregular, then same would be brought to the notice of the
Authority at a later point of time and it will be open for the
Authority to take appropriate action in that regard. The copy of
the said letter was marked to Respondent No.2-University. In the
said list annexed to the said letter, the Petitioner's name appears at
Serial No.103, wherein it is stated that the Petitioner's admission is
approved in 'Minority' open category in round 3.
(xii) On 20th December 2021, Respondent No.4-College addressed a
letter to Respondent No.3 in reply to a letter dated 3 rd December
2021 issued by Respondent No.3. The Respondent No.4 stated that
the Petitioner is admitted under the "Open Category" and was
allotted seat in "minority" quota, since she has fulfilled the
eligibility criteria of minimum 45 marks in her 12 th standard as per
Information Brochure. The Respondent No.4 further stated that as
per Information Brochure, the eligibility is decided based on the
percentage and not on credit points. It also refers to no objection
received from I.B., which is also termed as migration certificate.
The Respondent No.4 further brought to the notice of Respondent
No.3 that the admission was approved by Respondent No.1 on 26 th
December 2021. The Respondent No.4, therefore, requested the
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to issue Permanent Registration Number
(PRN) for enrollment of the Petitioner for academic year 2020-
6 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 15:47:43 :::
Tauseef 11-WP.L.20458.2022.J.doc
2021.
(xii) On 28th January 2022, Respondent no.4 reminded Respondent
no.2 for allotting PRN of the Petitioner and a copy of the earlier
letter dated 20th December 2022 was enclosed therewith.
(ixv)On 26th February 2022, the Petitioner addressed a letter to
Respondent No.2 requesting for PRN and also explained that as
per the Information Brochure of CET Cell, it is the percentage of
12th standard subject which has to be considered and not the score
points as per I.B. Diploma Course. The Petitioner prayed for
regularization of her admission.
(xv) On 31st March 2022, Respondent No.4 addressed a letter to
Respondent no.2-University reiterating all the facts which were
earlier stated in the letter of Respondent no.4 dated 20 th December
2021 to Respondent no.3. The letter of 31 st March 2022 was
pursuant to the letter of Respondent no.2 dated 3 rd December 2021
whereby Respondent no.4 was informed about ineligibility of the
petitioner. Respondent no.4 requested Respondent no.2 to allot
PRN for enrollment of the Petitioner to the course.
(xvi)On 4th April 2022, Respondent no.2 replied to the petitioner's letter
dated 26th February 2022 wherein it was stated that Association of
Indian Universities (AIU) has issued equivalence policy with regard
to I.B. Diploma Course and as per which, AIU shall accord
7 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 15:47:43 :::
Tauseef 11-WP.L.20458.2022.J.doc
equivalence to both the IB Diploma and IB Diploma Course
provided that a student has secured a minimum of 24 credits and
has passed a minimum of three subjects at Higher Level (HL) and
three at Standard Level (SL). The said letter further states that this
policy was informed to Respondent no.4-College vide letter dated
3rd December 2021. The copy of the Circular No.Eig/C/1652 of
2014 dated 20th August 2014 issued by Respondent No.2 to all the
Colleges was annexed to the letter dated 4 th April 2022. The
Resolution was reproduced which reads as under :-
"It was resolved that all students registered for the full IB Diploma
with core Requirements (Theory of Knowledge, Extended Essay and
Creativity, Action and Service) and minimum 24 points, and the best
five subjects considering for determining eligibility for
Arts/Commerce/Science and Law courses. The Academic Council
after consideration resolved as under:-
"Resolved that the Circular be sent to all affiliated
colleges/University Departments regarding the IB policy and the best
five subjects considering for the determining eligibility for Arts,
Commerce, Science and Law courses."
In the said Circular, it was also resolved that best of five
subjects (full pass i.e. 35/100) would be considered for determining
the eligibility for Arts/Commerce/Science and Law courses.
3. The Respondent No.2 has enclosed the policies and
procedures for equivalence of the qualification/degree of AIU and
paragraph 29 of the said policy reads as under :-
"29. AIU does not entertain applications for equivalence of such
professional degrees awarded by foreign universities which also
entitle the holder of the degree to practice a profession in India.
Thus, degrees in disciplines like Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, Law,
8 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 15:47:43 :::
Tauseef 11-WP.L.20458.2022.J.doc
Architecture etc. are presently outside the purview of the AIU as
such cases are handled by the respective professional councils;
The extracts of these policies annexed are stated to be
updated dated 31st June 2015. It is on this backdrop that the present
petition is filed seeking relief that the petitioner's admission be
regularized and action of Respondent nos.2 and 3 be held to be illegal.
Submissions of the Petitioner:-
4. The Petitioner submitted that as per Information Brochure,
paragraph 7.2-Part A, there is no requirement of score points with
respect to the student from I.B. courses but what is required for being
eligible is the percentage of marks by the student. The Petitioner
submits that she has obtained 60% marks against the minimum
requirement of 45% as per the said brochure and therefore, the action
of Respondent nos.2 & 3 declaring her as ineligible is incorrect. The
Petitioner further stated that Respondents had approved her admission
on 16th December 2021 after raising an objection on 3rd December 2021.
The Petitioner submits that the action of Respondents in approving the
provisional admission would amount to accepting the contention of the
Petitioner that she was eligible based on the percentage of marks. The
Petitioner submits that she had disclosed all the documents and details
in her application for admission to CET exam and to Respondent No.4-
College and same has not been shown to be false or incorrect. The
9 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 15:47:43 :::
Tauseef 11-WP.L.20458.2022.J.doc
Petitioner stated that she is almost midway in completing her course
and, therefore at this stage, it is unfair on the part of Respondent Nos.2
& 3 to declare her as ineligible. The Petitioner submits that the
equivalence policy of AIU referred to a letter dated 4 th April 2022 was
not communicated to her and therefore, the Petitioner cannot be found
to be at any fault. The Petitioner further submits that the Circular dated
20th August 2014 of Respondent no.2 speaks of I.B. points to be
calculated on best of five subjects whereas her course of 22 points is
based on six subjects. The Petitioner further submits that AIU policy
brochure is contrary to the Information Brochure of Respondent No.1
and there appears to be inconsistency between the two and in such a
scenario, the benefit has to be given to the Petitioner. The Petitioner
therefore, prayed that her admission be regularized and she be allowed
to complete her course and appropriate directions be given to the
Respondents.
Submissions of Respondent nos.2 & 3:-
5. The contesting Respondent Nos.2 & 3 have filed an affidavit-
in-reply dated 14th November 2022. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 submitted
that the Petitioner has scored only 22 points whereas minimum point
was required for being eligible to the College affiliated to the University
should be 24 points and since the Petitioner is disqualified at the
threshold, the action of Respondent Nos.2 & 3 is in accordance with its
10 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 15:47:43 :::
Tauseef 11-WP.L.20458.2022.J.doc
rules and regulations. Respondent Nos.2 &3 submitted that there is no
vested right existing in the Petitioner to seek a seat in the College
affiliated to it.
6. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 further submitted that within 6 months
from the date of receiving the documents, they had informed
Respondent no.4-College of the Petitioner's ineligibility and therefore,
there is no delay on their part to communicate the same. Respondent
Nos.2 & 3 have also enclosed the extracts of book titled 'The
International Baccalaureate'- Guide to University Recognition in India of
January 2017 wherein it is stated that AIU shall accord equivalence to
I.B. Diploma Courses provided that a student secures 24 points.
Respondent Nos.2 & 3 referred to the Circular No.Eig/C/1652 of 2014
dated 20th August 2014 wherein it is stated that I.B. Diploma or I.B.
Diploma Courses with 24 points holders would be eligible for Law
courses. The said Circular further stated that the College should not
admit any student without Prima Facie Letter from Eligibility &
Migration Section.
7. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 have annexed various documents to its
reply and one of the documents is a letter dated 3 rd December 2021
addressed to Respondent No.4 in which there appears to be overwriting
in the column dealing with 'Course' and it seems that 3 year Course
11 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 15:47:43 :::
Tauseef 11-WP.L.20458.2022.J.doc
which was originally appearing in the said letter addressed and received
by Respondent No.4 is now changed to 5 year Course in the reply filed
by them.
Respondent Nos.2 & 3 therefore, prayed for dismissal of the
present petition.
8. Insofar as Respondent No.4 is concerned, they have supported
the Petitioner and adopted the arguments made by the advocate for the
Petitioner.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the
Respondents and with their assistance have perused the pleadings,
documents and replies, etc.
10. Analysis and Conclusions :-
Before we proceed to analyse it would be apt to reproduce
Para 7.2 Part-A clause 2(a) of Information Brochure, which reads thus:-
"2.(a) An applicant who have successfully completed Senior
Secondary School Course (+2) or equivalent course from the Board in
Maharashtra State (such as 11+1, A level in Senior secondary School
Leaving Certificate course) from a recognized Board in India or
outside or from Secondary Board or equivalent, constituted or
recoginzed by the Union or by a State Government or form any
equivalent institution from a Foreign Country recognized by the
Government of that Country for the purpose of issue of qualifying
certificate on successful completion of the course Examination, having
its Board in the State of Maharashtra, with minimum of,
i. Forty-five Percent (45%) marks in Aggregate in case of candidates
belonging to General (Open)/E.W.S./Orphan Candidates from the
State of Maharashtra.
ii. Forty-Two Percent (42%) marks in Aggregate in case of candidates
belonging to VJ/DT/NT(A)/NT(B)/NT(C)/NT(D)/O.B.C. /S.B.C. Category
belonging to State of Maharashtra.
12 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 15:47:43 :::
Tauseef 11-WP.L.20458.2022.J.doc
iii. Forty-Percent (40%) marks in Aggregate in case of Candidates
belonging to SC&ST Categories from the State of Maharashtra only".
11. The starting point of admission is State CET and Information
Brochure for Centralised Admission Process (CAP) which a candidate is
advised to download and read before filling an online admission form
for CET. The Petitioner is the Maharashtra State Candidate and
therefore, Part A of Para 7.2 which deals with the eligibility condition
for LL.B. 5 year course would be applicable. As per paragraph 2(a) of
the said eligibility condition, an applicant should have scored minimum
45% marks in aggregate if candidate belongs to General Open Category
from the State of Maharashtra. There is no dispute that the applicant
has successfully completed the 10+2 or equivalent course from the
Institution referred to in 2(a) with 60% equivalent percentage.
12. Paragraph 3, part A - 7.2 makes a reference to an Applicant
who has passed the examination from State/Central Boards of
Schooling or from Open Schooling System/Regular System recognized
& established by the Government of the State/India or International
Board of School Education, after prosecuting the basic course of studies
in the pattern of 1st to 10th Standards in Regular mode, at Secondary
Schooling is also eligible for admission to five year Integrated LLB
Course. Admittedly, there is no dispute that this condition is satisfied by
the Petitioner.
13 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 15:47:43 :::
Tauseef 11-WP.L.20458.2022.J.doc
13. Clause 4 of Para 7.2, Part-A refers to qualification of 10 th, 12th
(+2) obtained through any mode (distance/Correspondence/Open
Schooling Method) are also eligible for LLB-5 Year Course, if they fulfill
the condition in 2(a) in Para 7.2, Part-A.
14. Clause 5 of Para 7.2, Part-A further prescribes eligibility
condition of an Applicant who should obtained basic qualification for
admission to Five Year Degree course and the Basic Qualification shall
be 10th (SSC) which shall be required to be followed by +2 (HSC)
qualification with the Condition fulfilled in 2(a) and lastly in clause 6 of
Para 7.2, the candidate should have a non-zero score in CET.
Note below Para 7.2, Part-A states that the percentage of marks shall
not be calculated by rounding off to nearest integer.
15. On a reading of whole of Para 7.2, Part-A, we do not find
anywhere, the grade point of I.B. is required to be considered for being
eligible. Insofar as the minimum marks required for being eligible for
the said course is specified in clause 2(a), it is 45% marks in case of
open category. Therefore, in our view, the reason given by the
Respondent nos.2 and 3 that the petitioner's score point is 22 as per I.B.
and the minimum required is 24 for being eligible for LLB course is not
borne out from eligibility criteria specified by Respondent no.1-Cet Cell
and in its Information Brochure on the basis of which the CET Exams
14 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 15:47:43 :::
Tauseef 11-WP.L.20458.2022.J.doc
are held and Centralized Admission Process is carried out for allotment
of seats. The Petitioner has admittedly obtained 60% marks in her
10+2 equivalent I.B. course and, therefore, the Petitioner is eligible as
per Paragraph 7.2, Part-A for admission to LLB 5 year course.
16. The Notification of Respondent No.1 dated 8th October 2020,
providing for eligibility condition for admission to 5 year LLB course for
unaided private professional education is identical to what is specified
in the brochure issued by Respondent No.1. Therefore even on this
count, there is no requirement of considering the grade point as per I.B.
Course.
17. The score card issued by Respondent No.1-CET Cell dated 27 th
November 2020, declares the Petitioner having scored 77 out of 150
marks and it further states that the score of CET is valid for admission
subject to fulfilling the Eligibility Criteria mentioned in the Information
Brochure published and displayed on the website. We have already
analyzed the Eligibility Criteria as per Information Brochure in earlier
paragraphs and have come to a conclusion that the Petitioner qualifies
for being eligible for 5 year LLB course as per the Information Brochure.
18. The Petitioner in her application form for the said course has
declared that she has cleared HSC equivalent in science stream from I.B.
Board and scored 59.83%. The application form wherein educational
15 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 15:47:43 :::
Tauseef 11-WP.L.20458.2022.J.doc
details of the candidate is required to be filled in does not provide for
mentioning of any score point as per I.B., but what is required to be
filled in is the percentage of marks scored in HSC or equivalent. The
Petitioner has admittedly stated that she has scored 59.83% marks
which is more than the minimum requirement for being eligible i.e.
more than 45% as per 7.2, Part-A of the information brochure. The
application form issued by the Respondents also is in consonance with
the interpretation given by us of Para 7.2 Part-A on the issue of
Eligibility Criteria for 5 year LLB degree course. Therefore even on this
count, the Petitioner has been correctly granted admission to LLB
course.
19. The Respondent No.1-CET Cell issued provisional allotment
letter to the Petitioner allotting a seat in Respondent No.4-College. The
said allotment letter states that the same is subject to verification of
documents uploaded matching with the original documents by the
admitting college. The provisional allotment letter issues instructions to
the Principal of the admitting college for verifying the documents and if
any discrepancy is found in the details submitted while applying online
against the original copies produced at the time of admission, the
college has full authority to ask for explanation/additional documents
and the candidate will have to comply within stipulated time as per the
schedule. Pursuant to this, the Petitioner produced the original
16 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 15:47:43 :::
Tauseef 11-WP.L.20458.2022.J.doc
documents with what were uploaded online and no discrepancy was
found in the uploaded documents and the original documents
submitted by Respondent No.4.
20. On 12th August 2021, Respondent No.1 informed the
Respondent No.4-College that 120 students have been allotted seats in
their college and the Petitioner's name appears at Item No.79 and in the
remark column, it is stated to have been certified by Respondent No.1.
The copy of this letter was also marked to other Respondents including
Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.1 certified the admission of the
Petitioner to Respondent No.4-College for the said course.
21. Vide letter dated 3rd December 2021, Respondent No.2
informed the Respondent No.4-College that pursuant to the details
forwarded by the College under cover of letter dated 15 th July 2021, the
Petitioner is found ineligible for 3 year LLB course as per I.B. Circular
which required 24 credit points, which the Petitioner was not satisfying,
since her credit points were only 22. It is important to note that this
letter was addressed to Respondent No.4-College and enclosed by the
Petitioner in the column under the head "Course" Respondent No.2 has
specified that the Petitioner has applied for 5 year LLB course. However,
on realizing the same, Respondent No.2 in their Affidavit-in-reply has
enclosed the copy of the said letter, wherein the 3 year LLB course is
17 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 15:47:43 :::
Tauseef 11-WP.L.20458.2022.J.doc
substituted by 5 year LLB course which appears to be overwritten by
whitener. Although, it appears to be an error on the part of Respondent
No.2, but it also indicates the non-application of mind and the casual
way in which the Respondent No.2 has informed about ineligibility to
the Respondent No.4. The Respondent No.4 submitted enrollment form
of all the students including the Petitioner to Respondent No.2 on 15 th
July 2021 and it is only on 3 rd December 2021 which is almost after 5
months by which the course had already started that they informed
about ineligibility of the Petitioner to Respondent No.4. The stand of
Respondent No.2 that due to large volume of work, they could not
verify and inform immediately about the ineligibility cannot be a
ground to justify the delay on the part of the Respondent No.2 moreso,
when Respondent No.1 has already allotted the seat to the Petitioner
and the course had begun. The ineligibility ought to have been
informed at the stage of accepting the CET Exam form or atleast at the
time of allotting seat to the College. In the Petitioner's case, it was
neither informed at the time of filling up CET Exam or at the time of
filling admission form after allotment of the College nor any
discrepancy was found between what was uploaded online and what
was originally submitted to Respondent No.4. Therefore, even on this
count, the impugned action of Respondent No.2 is not justified.
18 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 15:47:43 :::
Tauseef 11-WP.L.20458.2022.J.doc
22. It is important to note that the Admission Regulating
Authority, on 16th December 2021 approved the provisional admission
granted to the Petitioner and a copy of the said approval along with the
list of 120 students which included the Petitioner at Serial No.103 was
sent to Respondent No.4 and a copy of which was marked to
Respondent Nos.2 and 3. The said approval letter specifically records
about the admissions have been electronically scrutinized as well as
physically verified. It further states that if any illegality or irregularity or
information is found incorrect, then it will be open for the Authority to
take appropriate action in that regard. We have already opined earlier
that no discrepancy has been found in the documents uploaded and the
original submitted by the Petitioner. Furthermore, the information
submitted by the Petitioner has not been found to be incorrect or false
or illegal. This approval letter also does not state that if there is any
confusion in the interpretation of the eligibility then the admission will
be cancelled ab-initio. In our view, the admission of the Petitioner
having being approved and the information submitted by the Petitioner
having not found incorrect or illegal or irregular, it would not be proper
to question the eligibility now.
23. Respondent No.2-University for the first time vide letter dated
4th April 2022 informed the Petitioner about the equivalence policy
19 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 15:47:43 :::
Tauseef 11-WP.L.20458.2022.J.doc
issued by AIU for I.B. Diploma Course, wherein it is provided that I.B.
Diploma Course shall accord equivalence provided a student has
secured minimum of 24 credits. The said letter also refers to a Circular
No.1146 dated 3rd December 2021 which was addressed to all the
colleges. First and foremost in the eligibility criteria stated in the
Information Brochure there is no such reference that for I.B. student the
eligibility criteria would be minimum 24 credits. In the absence of the
same being specified in the Information Brochure, it cannot be expected
that the Petitioner would be aware of such equivalent policy of AIU. In
our view, the same should have been expressly provided in the
Information Brochure itself. Furthermore, the Circular of 2021 referred
to in the said letter is marked to Principals of the affiliated colleges and
therefore even if it is assumed that this Circular would govern the
eligibility criteria, no fault can be found with the Petitioner, moreso,
when she had submitted her original marksheet of I.B. course which not
only contain the score points, but also the percentage which she had
obtained in I.B. course and which percentage is more than what was
required as per the Information Brochure.
24. It is also important to note that the Information Brochure of
AIU annexed to the petition in paragraph No.29 expressly states that
AIU does not entertain application for equivalence of degrees in
discipline like medicine, nursing, pharmacy, law, etc. which are
20 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 15:47:43 :::
Tauseef 11-WP.L.20458.2022.J.doc
presently outside the purview of AIU as such cases are handled by the
respective professional councils. Therefore there appears to be some
contradiction and confusion between what is stated in the AIU
procedure and what is stated in the Circular issued by the University
and the Information Brochure of State CET. In the Information
Brochure of State CET there is no such mention of score points, but
what is required to be considered is only percentage of marks, whereas
in the Circular of Respondent No.2 dated 20 th August 2014 it is stated
that I.B. Diploma Courses with 24 points be made eligible for courses of
law. However, the AIU brochure states that law courses is outside its
purview. In our view, in the midst of this confusion and contradiction, it
would be unfair and unjust to hold the Petitioner ineligible by
Respondent No.2 moreso, when the Circular of Respondent No.2 dated
20th August 2014 is not addressed to the students, but to the colleges
and what a candidate is required to read is the Information Brochure
issued by the State CET. Therefore, in our view, there cannot be any
fault on the part of the Petitioner, so as to treat her ineligible to get
enrolled to LL.B course.
25. In the reply to the petition, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have
further stated that the Petitioner has not obtained prima facie eligibility
letter from Eligibility and Migration Section and therefore she is
ineligible. This was not the reason for holding the Petitioner ineligible in
21 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 15:47:43 :::
Tauseef 11-WP.L.20458.2022.J.doc
the communication dated 3rd December 2021, and therefore, it is settled
position that one cannot improvise the reasons by filing further
affidavits. The eligibility has to be tested on the touchstone of what was
communicated to the Petitioner and not by way of subsequent affidavit.
Even otherwise, Respondent No.4 in their letter to Respondent Nos.2
and 3 have stated that such a certificate was raised.
26. It is also important to note that the I.B. brochure annexed to
the Affidavit of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 states that for I.B. Diploma
Programme, as the Universities in India require percentage transcripts,
students applying to Indian Universities received a transcript with the
I.B. grades and percentages and to receive such transcript students must
notify their Diploma Programme Coordinator to apply to an Indian
University. This also indicates that the credits score is not sacrosanct,
but what is required to be seen for admission to Indian University is the
conversion of the said grades to percentages and therefore, when it
comes to admission to Indian Universities it is the percentage which is
important for considering eligibility, and therefore in the Information
Brochure of State CET minimum percentage of marks required which is
specified and not the credit points.
27. In the Circular of 20th August 2014 issued by Respondent No.2
it is resolved that for admission purposes the colleges should take into
22 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 15:47:43 :::
Tauseef 11-WP.L.20458.2022.J.doc
consideration percentage of the best 5 subjects (full pass i.e. 35/100 for
each subject as they do for other boards of education). This also
indicates that it is the percentage which is to be considered as per
Respondent No.2-University's own Circular and not the scored points.
Even otherwise, the Circular appears to be in conflict inasmuch as one
hand it is stated that I.B. Diploma with 24 points be considered for
eligibility for law course, whereas at the end it states that for admission
purposes the colleges should take into consideration percentage of best
of 5 subjects. Therefore even on this count there appears to be a
contradiction in terms and the Petitioner cannot be faulted since she has
already crossed the eligibility criteria of minimum 45% marks by
obtaining 60% marks in her I.B. course.
28. Therefore looked from any angle, in our view, Respondent
Nos.2 and 3 are not justified in holding the Petitioner as ineligible for 5
year LL.B course. We, therefore pass the following order :
ORDER
(i) The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to issue
Permanent Registration Number (PRN) to the Petitioner
and Respondent No.4 to regularize the admission to 5
year LL.B degree course from the academic year 2020-
2021.
23 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 15:47:43 ::: Tauseef 11-WP.L.20458.2022.J.doc
(ii) The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to issue the
mark-sheet/certificate of all the semesters for which the
Petitioner has appeared and cleared her exams till today.
(iii) The communication dated 3rd December 2021 and 4th
April 2022 issued by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to
Respondent No.4 and the Petition is quashed and set
aside.
(iv) Writ Petition is allowed in terms of above with no order
as to costs.
[JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.]
24 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 15:47:43 :::
