Allowed

Kum. Sujata Laxminarayan Arkal v. Member Secretary/Special District Welfare Officer and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC11 Sept 2009WP/1650/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought admission for the 5th year of a B. Arch. course under a reserved category but had her provisional admission cancelled due to a delayed caste validity certificate. Upon issuance of the certificate, the court directed the college to admit the petitioner and allowed an application for condonation of attendance.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 3 directed to admit the petitioner for the 5th year of B. Arch. course and consider her application for condonation of attendance.

Kum. Sujata Laxminarayan Arkal Vs Member… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1650 OF 2009

¶5

Sujata Laxminarayan Arkal

¶6

.. Petitioner.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Member Secretary / Special Dist.

¶9

Welfare Officer & Ors. .. Respondents

¶10

Mr. G.S. Hegde with C.M. Lokesh i/by Hegde & Associates

¶11

for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Bharat Mehta, AGP., for respondent nos. 1 & 4.

¶13

Mr. Rui Rodrigues for respondent nos. 2 & 3.

¶14

CORAM : J. N. PATEL &

¶15

SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ

¶16

DATE : 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2009

¶17

P.C. :

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

This petition can be disposed of at the stage of

¶20

admission itself. It is the petitioner's case that she has taken

¶21

¶22

admission in respondent no. 2 institution i.e., Sir. J.J. College of Architecture which is run by respondent no. 3, University of Mumbai. The petitioner applied for admission in the First Year of B. Arch Degree Course against a reserved category of Special Backward Class. As the petitioner was not having the caste validity certificate she applied to respondent no. 1 i.e., the Member Secretary, District Welfare Officer, Mumbai Divisional Caste Certificate Validity Committee but the same was returned with the direction that she should send the application through the Principal of the college i.e., respondent no. 2. This resulted in delay in furnishing the validity certificate due to which the petitioner's admission came to be cancelled by letter dated 21.7.2009. In the meantime, the petitioner could persuade respondent no. 2 to forward her caste certificate to respondent no. 1 for scrutiny. We are informed that the respondent no. 1 has issued caste validity certificate in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner submits that the impugned order cancelling her admission be quashed and set aside and she may be allowed to prosecute her degree course.

¶23

Presently we are informed that the petitioner having

¶24

passed 4th year of the Five Year B. Arch. Degree Course, will now be eligible to take admission in the 5th year and, therefore, this Court should direct the respondent no. 2 to admit her.

¶25

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1

¶27

& 4 as well as respondent nos. 2 and 3 submit that as the caste validity certificate was not there, the petitioner was rightly denied admission for 5th year of the B. Arch. Degree Course and as now the petitioner has obtained the caste validity certificate, this Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was able to seek admission as her own brother was having a caste validity certificate and, therefore, she did not consider the urgency in applying for the same till she was informed by the Institute. Though this cannot be a reason, what we find is that the petitioner was granted provisional admission and that is why it came to be cancelled as she has not submitted a caste validity certificate.

¶29

In our view, as the petitioner has now been given a caste validity certificate that she belongs to caste "Padmashali" which is recognised as Special Backward Caste and has been issued a certificate of validity dated 10.8.2009. We find no impediment in the way of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to re-admit the petitioner by giving her regular admission at the stage of the Course to which she is entitled i.e., 5th year of B. Arch. Degree Course.

¶30

Taking into consideration that the petitioner was

¶31

¶32

provisionally admitted and her admission was cancelled because she

¶33

could not produce the caste validity certificate in time. Therefore, it will be in the interest of justice that respondent no. 3 would consider her case sympathetically for condonation of attendance as the petitioner was prevented from attending classes for reasons beyond her control on such application being made. We, therefore, dispose of the petition in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would seek re-admission by 15.9.2009.

¶35

Autheticated copy of this order be furnished to the

¶36

learned counsel for the parties to enable them to act on it.

¶37

( J. N. PATEL, J)

Kum. Sujata Laxminarayan Arkal v. Member Secretary/Special District Welfare Officer and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kum. Sujata Laxminarayan Arkal v. Member Secretary/Special District Welfare Officer and 3 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

Dr. Anjali C. Dharmangaonkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ravi Nair Vs Maharashtra Area and Housing Development Authority and 5 Ors.

Capt. Kersy Ratonsha Driver Vs the Collector of Chennai and 5 Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Mid Day Radio North (I) Ltd. and Ors.

Reliance Industries Limited Vs Reliance Natural Resources Limited

Union of India through Ministry of Information Vs Mid Day Radio (South India Ltd. ) and Anr.