Dismissed

Smt. Medha Vijay Joshi v. State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Feb 2015WP/1250/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petitioner's challenge to a university order denying admission to the third year law course due to failure in a first-year subject. The court upheld the university's rejection based on its ordnance, noting provisional admission was conditional on clearance before final disqualification.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Medha Vijay Joshi Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

916 WP 1250-15 .doc

¶2

Sequeira

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1250 OF 2015.

¶5

Smt.Medha Vijay Joshi. .. Petitioner Vs.

¶6

State of Maharashtra & ors. .. Respondents

¶7

Mr.J.G.Reddy, for the petitioner.

¶8

Ms.S.S.Bhende-Assistant Government Pleader, for the respondent No.1.

¶9

Mr.Rajendra Anbhule, for the respondent No.2 & 3.

¶10

CORAM: Smt. Vasanti A. Naik & Shri C.V.Bhadang JJ. Friday 20 February, 2015 .

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

By this petition the petitioner impugns the order of the respondent-University dated 12 January 2015 declining permission to the petitioner to seek admission in the third year law course on the ground that the petitioner had failed to clear the first year LLB examination.

¶13

The petitioner had appeared for the second year LLB examination, in summer 2014 and had also appeared in some of the subjects of the first year examination as she was permitted to keep terms while seeking admission to the second year examination. According to the Ordinance - of the University, a student who fails to clear the first year examination in all the subjects is not entitled to admission to the third year of the degree

¶14

¶15

916 WP 1250-15 .doc

¶16

course. Since the petitioner had failed in one of the subjects of the first year and had sought revaluation of the paper in the said subject the petitioner was granted provisional admission in the third year of the law course as the revaluation result was not declared. The revaluation result was subsequently declared and it was found that the petitioner had failed to clear the subject. The University informed the petitioner by the impugned communication that the admission of the petitioner in the third year of the law course was not permissible as she had failed to clear the first year of the law course.

¶17

We do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Since the result of the revaluation was not declared, the petitioner was granted provisional admission in the third year of the law course. After the revaluation results were declared and the petitioner was found to have failed in one of the subjects of the first year, the University rightly communicated, by the impugned order, that the petitioner was not eligible for admission to the third year of the law course, in view of the Ordinance of the University.

¶18

Since the impugned communication does not suffer from any illegality, we dismiss the Writ petition, with no order as to costs.

¶19

(C.V.Bhadang J.)

¶20

(Vasanti A.Naik J.)

Smt. Medha Vijay Joshi v. State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Medha Vijay Joshi v. State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Morarji Kenia Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jaywant Industrial Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.

Baby Basawaraj Prachande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Shubhashani Constructions Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Shri Jitendra Manohardas Thakkar and or Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr.

Khalil Ahmed Badruddoja Vs Malegaon Municipal Corporation and Anr.

M/S. Padmayog through Its Sole Proprietor Kamlesh Shah Vs Pimpari Chinchwad Municipal Corporation through Commissioner and Ors.