Akshay Pravin Kalawar Vs the Management Council… — Education and Admissions

¶1

 -: 1 :-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1834 OF 2007

¶4

 Mr.Akshay Pravin Kalawar .. Petitioner.

¶5

 V/s.
 The Management Council, University
 of Mumbai and others. .. Respondents.

¶6

---

¶7

 Mr.P.K.Rele, Sr.Advocate with Vinod Tayade and R.D.Oak
 for the Petitioner.

¶8

 Mr.R.A.Rodriques for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶9

 Ms. Nandini Memon for the Respondent No.3.

¶10

---

¶11

CORAM : F.I. REBELLO AND
 R.M. SAVANT, JJ.

¶12

DATED : 04th APRIL, 2007.
P.C.:

¶13

 . Rule. Heard forthwith.

¶14

 2. By the order dated 3rd of January, 2007 the
 Respondent No.3 College was informed by the Respondent
 No.2 that the Respondent No.1, on a consideration of the
 case of the petitioner for condonation of deficit
 attendance, has not accepted the recommendation of the
 College in view of the provisions made in the relevant
 Ordinance in that behalf. The Ordinance 119 sets out
 the minimum attendance necessary for keeping terms.

¶15

 -: 2 :-

¶16

 Ordinance 120, confers the power on the Management
 Council of the University to condone the deficiency.

¶17

 3. In the instant case, the petitioner is a student
 of the four year degree course in engineering in the
 Electronics and Telecommunication stream. He was
 declared unsuccessful in Applied Mathematics-IV. On
 13.07.2006 he applied to the University through proper
 channel for revaluation of the answer book of the said
 subject. The results of the revaluation were
 communicated to the petitioner on 06th of November,
 2006. The petitioner earlier approached this court by
 Writ Petition (A.S.) No. 7150 of 2006, seeking a
 direction that he should be permitted to take the
 examination which was to commence in the month of
 November, 2006. By the order dated 6th of November,
 2006 that petition was disposed of. Pursuant to which,
 the petitioner was allowed to take the examination.
 This court while disposing of the writ petition No.
 7150 of 2006, recorded a statement made on behalf of the
 respondents that the petitioner would be allowed to take
 the examination which is scheduled either on 14th or
 20th November, 2006 and that an application may be filed
 by the petitioner before the Respondents for condonation
 of lecturers, if there has been a shortage thereof. The
 court observed that we permit the petitioner to file

¶18

 -: 3 :-

¶19

 such an application for condonation of lectures, which
 shall be allowed by the respondents inorder to enable
 the petitioner to take the examination. Certain other
 directions were also given. The court also observed
 that this arrangement has been made as a special case
 and will not create any equity in the petitioner.

¶20

 4. When the application for condonation came up for
 consideration, the Respondent No.1, considering the
 Ordinances of the University, it appears, could not
 exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner and
 consequent thereto the present petition.

¶21

 5. During the course of hearing, we had directed
 the Principal of Respondent No.3 to file an affidavit to
 find out whether the petitioner inspite of the fact that
 he had failed, was allowed to participate in the
 lecturers. In the affidavit filed, it has been pointed
 out that as the petitioner applied for revaluation, the
 petitioner was permitted to attend his Semester VII
 classes which had commenced on 17.07.2006, only purely
 as a humanitarian gesture. The effect of revaluation
 would be that the petitioner would have been deemed to
 have passed on the date of the first declaration and
 consequently, would have been entitled to keep terms.

¶22

 -: 4 :-

¶23

 6. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the

¶24

 Ordinance can be read on the facts of this case to
 consider attendance on all days when the petitioner was
 allowed to attend and attended the classes, which had
 commenced from 17.07.2006. Para-10 of the affidavit of
 the College would indicate that the petitioner had
 approximately 40-45% attendance at his Semester VII
 lecturers. We can understand the same, considering that
 the petitioner was awaiting the result of revaluation.
 The respondent No.1 has powers to condone the delay.
 Considering the earlier order of this court and the
 facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, and
 to avoid further delay the ends of justice would be met
 if we hold that the petitioner had an attendance of
 40-45% and consequently, it was within the jurisdiction
 of the Respondent No.1 to condone the delay and in the
 special facts and circumstances, the delay is condoned
 and consequently, the communication dated 3rd January,
 2007 is to be held null and void.

¶25

 7. Consequential directions will have to be issued.
 In that light, the petition is made absolute in terms of
 prayer clause (b).

¶26

 8. In passing, we may observe that what we have
 noted is that though the students apply for revaluation

¶27

 -: 5 :-

¶28

 on time on account of various factors, perhaps beyond
 the control of the University, it is not always possible
 to declare the results of the revaluation within a
 reasonable period. In such situation the University to
 consider to give some discretionary power to the
 principals of the affiliated colleges to grant
 provisional admission to students who have applied for
 revaluation and where the principal is of the opinion
 that such provisional admission can be granted to permit
 to do subject to the result of revaluation and without
 any equity in favour of such student.

¶29

 9. With the above observation, the petition is
 disposed of. Rule is made absolute in terms what we
 have stated above.

¶30

 (F.I.REBELLO,J.)

¶31

 (R.M.SAVANT,J.)

Akshay Pravin Kalawar v. the Management Council - University of Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshay Pravin Kalawar v. the Management Council - University of Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharad Hanmant Beske Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Union of India and Anr. Vs K.R. Joshi and Anr.

Jaywant Dilip Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mohammedwalla Trust and Anr. Vs the Regional Director, Western Region Committee Ncte and Anr.

Raje Vijaysinh Dafale Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Ors. Vs Regional Deputy Director (Sugar) and Joint Registrar Co-Op.Societies, Kolhapur and Ors.

Pitamber Dayaram Thakur and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.