Kum. Kiran Jaising Sapkal Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORIGINAL SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 12 OF 2007

¶5

Kum.Kiran Jaisingh Sakapl

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

Mr.Abhijeet Rane i/by.M/s.A.Rane & Associates

¶11

for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.P.G.Sawant, AGP for respondent no.1.

¶13

Mr.Rui Rodrigues for respondent no.2.

¶14

Mr.Ajit Kenjale for respondent no.3.

¶15

CORAM: J.N.PATEL, J. And

¶16

S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶17

DATE ; 15TH FEBRUARY, 2007.

¶18

P.C :-

¶19

1.Rule. Returnable forthwith.

¶20

2.Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶21

:2:

¶22

3.The petition can be disposed off at the stage
of admission itself. The petitioner is prosecuting
his studies in Bachelor of Law degree for which
examination is conducted by the University of Mumbai.
He is a student of New Law College. The course in
which the petitioner is preparing for his LLB
examination is conducted by Semester system. It is
the case of the Petitioner, that he appeared for
First Term, the result of which was announced on
27.1.2005 in which he was declared fail in Contract-I
paper having scored only 23 marks. Thereafter the
Petitioner appeared for Second Term examination in
April 2005 in which he was declared as fail in
Constitutional Law paper on 18.7.2005. But as per
the scheme, he was allowed to appear in
the examination of Constitutional paper. He passed
in all subjects of L.L.B. First Year in April 2006
of which result was declared on 10.7.2006.
Thereafter the Petitioner was found eligible for
taking admission in Second Year L.L.B. course in
June 2005. It is the case of the petitioner, that in
May 2006 he appeared for K.T. examination of

¶23

:3:

¶24

Contract-I of which results were declared on
7.7.2006. By that time he had already taken
admission for Second Year of L.L.B. course. It

¶25

appears that subsequently the Petitioner in Second
Year of L.L.B. (III) Term examination, failed in the
paper Administrative Law scoring 35 marks and paper
of Transfer of Property Act and Easement Act scoring
34 marks by result declared on 9.2.2006. Thereafter,
the petitioner in April, 2006 appeared for his Second
Year of L.L.B. (semester-IV) (revision course) term
examination, and was declared as failed on 15.7.2006
only in the paper of Land Laws scoring 28 marks. He
was allowed to appear for Second Year of L.L.B.(III)
Terms (K.T.) examination and was declared failed in
Transfer of Property Act and Easement Act paper but
again failed in Administrative Law scoring 38 marks
for which the Petitioner applied to the University
for revaluation on 4.9.2006. The Petitioner was
declared successful in the revaluation done by the
University, by communication dated 30.11.2006, i.e.
after almost six months. Thereafter as the
Petitioner did not clear the paper in due time, he
was not allowed to appear for next term as he was

¶26

:4:

¶27

unable to take admission to the Third Year L.L.B.

¶28

before the cut of date.

¶29

4. It is the case of the petitioner, that he has
been attending the lectures being conducted for the
next term i.e. L.L.B. Third Year and was allowed to
Keep Term by the Principal of New Law College where
the Petitioner is prosecuting his studies. It is the
case of the Petitioner, that, he should now be
permitted to appear for L.L.B.(III) Year, 5th and 6th
Term alongwith practical examination as he has now
cleared all papers of L.L.B. Second Year.

¶30

5. The Petitioner therefore seeks a direction from
this Court to the Respondent herein to permit him to
take admission in the Third Year of L.L.B. in the
academic year 2006-2007 and be allowed to keep terms
for the same and allowed to appear for examinations
in April/May 2007 and also the Practical Training
examination and has sought that the delay in taking
admission be condoned on the ground that though the
Petitioner was not permitted to enroll himself in
L.L.B. Third Year course, he has been permitted by

¶31

:5:

¶32

the Principal of New Law College to attend classes
and he has actually met the requirement of the
University of having the minimum percentage of
attendance for the said course. It is submitted,
that the Petitioner’s admission got delayed for the
reasons beyond his control as there was a delay in
declaring the results of the revaluation sought by
him in the paper of Administrative Law and therefore
the Petitioner would loose his one academic year, if
he is not permitted to appear for the Third Year of
L.L.B.which is scheduled to be held in May-2007. In
support of his contention, the Petitioner has
tendered a copy of the communication addressed by the
Principal of New Law College to his Advocate
alongwith the Certificate to the effect that in the
academic interest of such students pending the
revaluation process, the College has allowed to
attend the Lectures of their probable next academic
year without charging any fees whatsoever from the
students and the Petitioner was allowed to attend
Lectures for 5th and 6th Semesters of the Third Year
of three years L.L.B. course during the current
academic year 2006-2007 and in pursuance thereof he

¶33

:6:

¶34

has been found to have been attending all the
Lectures sine beginning of the Term.

¶35

6. Mr.Rodrigues, Learned Counsel appearing for the
University, submits, that in so far as the contention
of the Petitioner that the results of revaluation
were delayed cannot be at dispute as the University
could not get the revaluation done within the
stipulated period. But that by itself, cannot be the
reason to permit the Petitioner for being admitted to

¶36

Third Year L.L.B. course as there is no

¶37

authenticated record produced by the Petitioner to
show that he was duly admitted for Third Year of
L.L.B. course by his College and now that, it is
February-2007, the Petitioner would not be able to
comply with the requirement of minimal attendance to
qualify for appearing for Fifth and Sixth Semester of
L.L.B. course and therefore the relief sought for by
the Petitioner cannot be granted.

¶38

7. We have given our anxious consideration to the
case of the Petitioner. We find that it is not the
Petitioner who can be solely held responsible for not

¶39

:7:

¶40

taking admission in the Third Year L.L.B. course for
the very reason that the Petitioners result in
revaluation were not declared within time. It is a
well accepted principle that a person cannot be
expected to perform an impossible Act, particularly,
when it is beyond his control. The fault has to be
shared by the University for delaying the revaluation
of his paper in Administrative Law and now that the
Petitioner has been successful and has been declared
pass on revaluation, it will be unjust to deprive him
of one academic year. We have no reason to
disbelieve the Certificate issued by the Principal of
New Law College which in its preface has given a
justification for permitting the students to attend
classes subject to regularising their admission
through clearing the subjects, particularly which are
under revaluation. It is in the larger interest of
the students community. We take on record the letter
received by the Petitioner’s Advocate from the
Principal of New Law College and the Certificate mark
it ‘X’ collectively. Treating it as an exceptional
case, we direct the College to regularise the
admission of the Petitioner, with effect from the

¶41

:8:

¶42

commencement of the academic year 2006-2007 and
permit him to appear for practical examination and
submit his examination Form to the University, which
the University shall accept.

¶43

8.In so far as the other relief in the petition
challenging Claus 13(ii) of ordinance 237-A issued by
the Respondent No.1 as ultra vires, unconstitutional,
null and void and to quash the same is concerned, the
Learned Counsel appearing for the University, submits
that the same does not exist and is nonest.

¶44

.The Petition stands disposed off accordingly

¶45

with no orders as to costs.

¶46

(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)

Kum. Kiran Jaising Sapkal v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kum. Kiran Jaising Sapkal v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

abdul bari shaikh Vs education inspector and 3 Ors.

Fair View Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika and 4 Ors.

Vijay v. Parulekar Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Podar Mills Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jai Bharat Synthetics Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Archer Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.