Dismissed

Vijay Baburao Ghuge v. Pune University, Examination Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Oct 2013WP/1041/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging cancellation of LL.B. examination result. Court held petitioner ineligible to appear after admission deadline. Distinct from Supreme Court equity case. Petition rejected; petitioner permitted to seek relief via representation to Vice Chancellor within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

None. Petitioner directed to submit representation to Vice Chancellor within three weeks.

Vijay Baburao Ghuge Vs Pune University, Examination… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2013)

ash

wp-1041.12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1041 OF 2012

¶6

Vijay Baburao Ghuge .. Petitioner Vs Pune University & Others .. Respondents

¶7

Shri Karan Bhosale i/by Shri D.A. Nigude for the Petitioner. Shri S.R. Moray i/by Shri Vishwanath S. Talkute for Respondent No.2. Ms. S.S.Bhende, AGP for Respondent No.3. Shri Sudam Kale i/by Shri Atul G. Damle for Respondent No.5.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ DATE : 21ST OCTOBER 2013

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. In

¶11

October 2001, the Petitioner was admitted to the three Years LLB Degree Course. Though the Petitioner was admitted to the third year of the LL.B. Course in the Academic Year 2004-2005, till April 2011, the Petitioner could not clear all the subjects of the third year LL.B. Course. Even in April 2011, the Petitioner appeared for the examination. However, he could not clear all the papers. The Petitioner filled in the form for appearing for October 2011 Examination of the third year LL.B. course. The Petitioner appeared in the said examination and cleared all the papers and was declared as having passed. On 12th December 2011, the Petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate on the roll of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa.

¶12

ash 2

¶13

wp-1041.12

¶14

On 4th/5th January 2012, the Controller of Examinations, Pune University, Pune addressed a letter to the Petitioner informing him that the Petitioner could not have appeared for examination conducted in October 2011 and, therefore, the result of the examination has been cancelled and, therefore, the Petitioner should return the certificate issued along with the marksheet to the Pune Univesity.

¶15

A reply has been filed by Shri Balasaheb Dayaram Naik, Deputy Registrar of the University of Pune. In Paragraph 5 of the said reply, he stated that though the Petitioner appeared for the examination in October 2011, repeatedly from October 2004 till April 2011, he could not pass the third year examination. In October 2011, the Petitioner appeared for two backlog subjects of third year LL.B. course. Reliance is placed by the University of Pune on the directions issued by the Controller of Examinations on 2nd July 2010. The said direction records that the admission granted to the Three Year LL.B. Course will be valid only for six years and, therefore, the students who have been admitted in the Academic year 2004-2005 will be granted last chance to appear in the examination held in April/May 2011. It records that after April/May 2011, the concerned student will have to get re-admitted to the LL.B. Course. Therefore, a direction was issued not to accept the application and examination form of such candidates. The contention in short is that the Petitioner was ineligible to appear for October 2011

¶16

ash 3 wp-1041.12

¶17

examination as he ought to have cleared all the subjects latest in April 2011 examination. It is stated that an explanation was called for by the University of Pune from the Principal of the second RespondentCollege as to how the application form of the Petitioner was accepted. The said explanation has been called by the letter dated 5th/6th January 2012.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that in the application form filled in by the Petitioner for appearing in October 2011 examination, all details were disclosed. He submitted that not only that the form of the examination accepted by the College was forwarded to the University of Pune, but the University allowed the Petitioner to appear for the examination.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relies upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University and others¹ . He urged that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the University is estopped from cancelling the result of the examination of the Petitioner. He urged that after result was declared, the Petitioner has been enrolled as an Advocate and, therefore, considering the equity of the case, the result of the Petitioner as well as enrollment of the Petitioner will have to be protected.

¶20

1 (AIR 1990 SC 1075)

ash

wp-1041.12

We have carefully considered the submissions. It is not in dispute that going by the law, the Petitioner could not have appeared for October 2011 examination and even his application form could not have been accepted. The Petitioner had repeatedly appeared for the third year LL.B. examination but he could not clear all the papers till April 2011.

¶25

We have perused the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sanatan Gauda (supra). We find that in the facts of the case before the Apex Court, protection has been granted to the Petitioner. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked by the Petitioner. The Petitioner was ineligible to appear for the October 2011 examination. Therefore, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we are unable to pass any order which will validate the appearance of the Petitioner in the examination. The relief granted by the Apex Court in the case of Sanatan Gauda (supra) appears to be in the facts of the case and obviously in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

¶26

At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that considering the peculiar facts of the case, the

ash

wp-1041.12

Petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to the Vice Chancellor of the first Respondent University.

¶31

Though we are rejecting the Petition, we make it clear that it will be open for the Petitioner to make appropriate representation to the Vice Chancellor of the first Respondent University. Though we are not recording a finding that a power of relaxation vests with the Vice Chancellor, if such power does exist, it will be open for the Petitioner to invoke the said power of the Vice Chancellor.

¶32

Subject to what is observed above, we reject the Petition. However, we make it clear that rejection of the Petition will not prevent the Petitioner from making appropriate representation to the Vice Chancellor of the University. Rejection of the Petition will not prevent the Vice Chancellor from considering the representation of the Petitioner on merits. If representation is made within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered by the Vice Chancellor in accordance with law and appropriate decision shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of making the representation.

¶33

The Petition is accordingly rejected.

¶34

(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J) ( A.S. OKA, J )

Vijay Baburao Ghuge v. Pune University, Examination Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Baburao Ghuge v. Pune University, Examination Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Baburao Haribhau Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Rural Development Dept and Ors.

Milind Hari Londhe Vs Vidya Milind Londhe

Vidya Milind Londhe Vs Milind Hari Londhe

The Manganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Sonarsiddhanagar through Ramchandra Tukaram Kadam Vs the Authorized Officer, Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Shri. Jagdish Jamdeo Gaikwad Vs the Commissioner, Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Sattappa Baburao Shinde Vs Maharashtra State Educational Research and Training Council, Pune and Ors.