Disposed

Sainath Taterao Pawar and Anr. v. Union of India and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC24 Jan 2018PIL/4/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single bench disposed of two PILs filed by first-year LLB and LLM students against the University of Mumbai. Due to late admissions caused by examination chaos, the court directed non-appearing students not to be treated as failed and permitted simultaneous appearance for first and second semesters. PILs were disposed.

What did the court decide?

Students not appearing for the first semester exam will not be treated as failed; they may appear for first and second semester exams simultaneously if they notify colleges by 29 January 2018.

Sainath Taterao Pawar and Anr. Vs Union of India and… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

4-pil-l-13-18-908-pil-15-18.doc .

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) NO. 13 OF 2018 WITH

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 62 OF 2018

¶5

Sainath Taterao Pawar and anr. .. Petitioners versus Union of India and ors. .. Respondents. WITH PUBLIC INTERST LITIGATION (L) NO. 15 OF 2018 WITH IPA NO. 11 OF 2018 Imran Mohammed Kasim Khan ..Petitioner Versus The University of Mumbai and ors. .. Respondents.

¶6

Mr. Uday Warunjikar a/w. Mr. Abhishek Bhat i/b Mr. Siddhesh Ashok Pilankar for the Petitioner in PILL 15/18.

¶7

Mr. Kamaljit Singh for the Petitioner in PIL 13/18 and Applicant in NMWL62/18. Mr. R.A. Rodrigues a/w. Ms Rizvi Jain and Mr. Asadullah Sheikh for Respondent No.1 in PILL 15/18 and Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in PILL 13/18 – University of Mumbai.

¶8

Mr. H.S. Vengavkar, Addl. Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.2- State in PILL 15/18 and Respondent No.3 in PILL 13/18. Mr. A.K. Najam-es-Sani a/w. Ms Pinky R. Patel i/b M/s. Desai & Diwanji for Intervenors in PILL 13/18.

¶9

Mr. Vikhil Dhoka a/w. Ms Hetal Dhoka for Intervenor in PILL 13/18.

¶10

CORAM : B. R. GAVAI &

¶11

B. P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 24^th JANUARY, 2018.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

1] The petitioners, who are the students of 1^st year LLB have approached this Court praying for postponement of LLB

Examination.

1 of 4

DSS

4-pil-l-13-18-908-pil-15-18.doc .

¶18

2] On account of chaos created by the University in conducting examination for the last academic year, the results of the qualifying examination could not be declared within time. A cascading effect was that the admission for first year LLB course continued till 21^st December 2017. The examinations are now scheduled to be conducted on 29^th January 2018.

¶19

3] A similar issue arose for consideration before us in PIL (L) No. 15 of 2018 with Writ Petition (L) No. 217 of 2018 decided on 22^nd January 20128 purporting to conduct the examination of the first semester of LLM course. Insofar as the LLB examinations are concerned, the number of students offering themselves for the examination is much higher as compared to LLM examinations. Shri. Rodrigues informs us that there are about 6612 students who have been admitted for the first year LLB course.

¶20

4] However, the ground realities we cannot be forgeted. If a student is admitted to the LLB Course on 22^nd December 2017, he could not be practically expected to have prepared himself for examination within a period of one month and one week.

¶21

5] In that view of the matter, we find that the same arrangement needs to be done insofar as the students of the first year LLB are concerned, as was done for the students who were appearing for LLM examination.

¶22

2 of 4

¶23

DSS

¶24

4-pil-l-13-18-908-pil-15-18.doc .

¶25

6] In that view of the matter, we find that the following order would sub-serve the interest of justice.

¶26

“(i) Such of the students who do not appear in the examination which is scheduled to commence from 29^th January 2018, such non appearance should not be considered as a failure to appear in the first semester examination;

¶27

(ii) Such students who opt not to appear in the examination commencing from 29^th January 2018, would be permitted to appear for the examination of the papers of the first semester along with the papers for second semester simultaneously, and the said appearance would be treated as first appearance.”

¶28

7] However, we clarify that the students who do not desire to offer themselves for the examination commencing from 29^th January 2018, such students shall communicate to the Colleges concerned that they will not be offering themselves for the examinations commencing from 29^th January 2018 and that they would appear for the first semester along with the papers for second semester simultaneously. The said intimation be given to the Colleges by 29^th January 2018. The Colleges concerned shall forward the said intimation to the respondent – University so that the respondent -University can well in advance prepare itself for the number of students who will be appearing simultaneously for the first and second semesters.

¶29

3 of 4

¶30

DSS

¶31

4-pil-l-13-18-908-pil-15-18.doc .

¶32

8] With aforesaid directions, the public interest litigations are disposed of.

¶33

9] In view of disposal of Public Interest Litigation (L) No. 13 of 2018 and Public Interest Litigation (L) No. 15 of 2018, Notice of Motion (L) No.62 of 2018 and IPA No. 11 OF 2018 do not survive and the same are also disposed of.

¶34

10] All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶35

[B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶36

[B. R. GAVAI, J.]

¶37

4 of 4

¶38

DSS

Sainath Taterao Pawar and Anr. v. Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sainath Taterao Pawar and Anr. v. Union of India and 5 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

Ravindra H. Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Ramdas Dayaram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramesh Dhondiram Devghare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dnyaneshwar Shankar Kale Vs Rajaram Parasram Godse and Ors.

Abdul Nasir Abdul Samad Jalal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pankaj Ramji Shivbhagat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kondappa Sadashiv Kore Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Amol Manikrao Deshmukh Vs the Union of India and Others

Vidula W/O Vijay Khedekar Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Dept. of Education and 5 Ors.

Mohd. Nadeem Moinuddin Paloba Vs the State of Maharashtra

Smt. Sangeeta Balwant Faske Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Parvati Lakshmanan and 5 Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.

Imran Mohammed Kasim Khan Vs the University of Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Gyanodaya Educational Society and Anr. Vs Dy.Director of Education, and Ors.