Allowed

Ms. Shradha Mahadev Mahajan v. the Registrar, University of Bombay

Bombay HC6 Sept 2013WP/2126/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought a declaration that the petitioner, holding an HSC certificate from Chhattisgarh, was eligible for admission to Mumbai University. The court held the petitioner eligible based on a Maharashtra State Board letter confirming equivalence, conditioning relief on the verification of that letter's authenticity.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that petitioners are eligible for admission, subject to verification of the authenticity of the letter regarding equivalence of examination boards.

Ms. Shradha Mahadev Mahajan Vs the Registrar… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2013)

WPL1952.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1952 OF 2013

¶7

Shradha Mahadev Mahajan ....Petitioner V/s. The Registrar, Mumbai University ....Respondents

¶8

Mr.V.M.Thorat along with Ms.P.V.Thorat for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr.Rui Rodrigues for the respondents.

¶10

CORAM : S.J.VAZIFDAR & K.R.SHRIRAM,JJ

¶11

DATE : 6th September , 2013.

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

1 Rule. Rule returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of parties.

¶14

2 The petitioner and other students mentioned in Exhibit-A seek a declaration that they are eligible for admission to the undergraduate course of the college affiliated to respondent no.1Mumbai University. Ordinance 2152 of the 1^st respondent relates to B.Com course. It prescribes the minimum admission requirements. The relevant requirements as far as the petitioners are concerned for

¶15

2 WPL1952.13

¶16

the said course is as follows :-

¶17

“Must have passed and examination of another University or body recognized as equivalent to Higher Secondary School Certificate (Std.XII) Examination.”

¶18

3 The petitioner and the other students have obtained HSC certificate from the Board of School and Technical Education Chhattisgarh. The question therefore, is whether the said Board is recognized as equivalent to HSC. Mr.Thorat tendered a communication dated 8.8.2013 addressed by the Secretary, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Pune to the Secretary of the said Chhattisgarh Board, a copy whereof is taken on record and marked “X” The letter states as under :-

¶19

“With reference to the letter cited above, it is informed that the students passed the Secondary and Senior Secondary Exam conducted by your board of School and Technical Education are equivalent to the students passed the Secondary and Senior Secondary Exam conducted by Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and higher Secondary Education, Pune. This letter is issued and valid for the year 2013-14 only.”

¶20

WPL1952.13

¶21

¶22

4 Thus the Maharashtra State Board has itself recognized the HSC conferred by the Chhatisgarh Board as equivalent to HSC examination. In view of this letter the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs claimed. It is however, clarified that it is open to the 1^st respondent to ascertain the veracity of the letter dated 8.8.2013. If it is found genuine, the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs claimed.

¶23

5 Mr.Thorat also tendered a letter dated 26.8.2013 which states that the Pune University has decided to grant admission to the students from the said Chhatisgarh Board on the basis of the equivalence granted by the Maharashtra State Board. A copy of said letter of Pune University is taken on record and marked “X-1”.

¶24

6 The 1^st respondent has merely stated that as a matter of practice it relies on the inclusion of an outside board in the list published by the Council of Board in School Education in India.

¶25

7 That however, is only for convenience. It is not a statutory board. It is only for verification. Respondent no.1 is bound to verify the eligibility on its own.

¶26

8 Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause-(a)

¶27

4 WPL1952.13

¶28

subject to the above clarification regarding the 1^st respondents right to determine the authenticating of the above communications. The Writ petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.

¶29

(K.R.SHRIRAM,J) (S.J.VAZIFDAR,J)

Ms. Shradha Mahadev Mahajan v. the Registrar, University of Bombay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Shradha Mahadev Mahajan v. the Registrar, University of Bombay

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

Sandhya Sudhir Mahadik Vs Jogeshwari Education Society and Ors.

Mr. Ramesh Devidas Tarale Vs the Chief Officer, Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board, and 4 Ors.

M/S. Spectrum Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Principal Housing Secretary and 3 Ors.

Smt.Jayanti Sitaram Aiyar Vs the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

Avdhut R. Bhise and 9 Ors. Vs the Joint Director of Vocational Educagion and Traning ,Technical Education and 5 Ors.

Mahavir Plantations Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Reserve Bank of India and Anr.