Allowed

Jaspal Mahendrasingh Girase v. the Admission Regulating Authority Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC29 Sept 2021WP/6285/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned the rejection of the petitioner's BAMS course admission due to absent validity certificates on the specific date of the plea. The High Court held the petitioner possessed valid documents despite mishandling. Directing admission approval refusal be lifted on these technical grounds. Judgment was disposed allowing the plea.

What did the court decide?

Admission to the petitioner may not be refused on the ground of non-filing of validity certificate and Non Creamy Layer certificate on the date of admission.

Jaspal Mahendrasingh Girase Vs the Admission… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 969-wp 6285-2021.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 6285 OF 2021

¶4

Jaspal Mahendrasingh Girase

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Admission Regulating Authority

¶8

and others

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Mr. Gajendra Devichand Jain, Advocate h/f Mr. D. S. Bagul, Advocate
for the Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. M. D. Narwadkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. S. P. Tiwari, AGP for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. C. A. Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.

¶12

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

¶13

 DATED : 29th September, 2021.

¶14

PER COURT:-

¶15

. The petitioner is admitted from VJ category for the BAMS course

¶16

with respondent No. 4 college. The admission of the petitioner is not

¶17

approved on the ground that the petitioner failed to submit the validity
certificate.

¶18

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

3. Mr. Narwadkar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits

¶20

that the petitioner failed to produce the validity certificate and Non

¶21

1 of 3

¶22

2 969-wp 6285-2021.odt

¶23

Creamy Layer certificate. In view of clause 9.1.5.1 of the admission
brochure, the admission of the petitioner cannot be approved. He shall
be deemed to be admitted from Open category. In view of the same, no
error is committed by the respondent No. 1.

¶24

4.The petitioner is possessing the validity certificate of Rajput
Bhamta VJ issued on 17.10.2012. It appears that, the same was
misplaced. The petitioner also has the Non Creamy Layer certificate
valid up to March 2022. The Ayush Director had given opportunity to
rectify the defects of the document on the relevant date. When the
defects were sought to be rectified, the petitioner submitted the
documents with the college, thereafter college forwarded it much
before the due date. The directions were given by Ayush to rectify the
documents. The petitioner had placed the documents on record. The
petitioner possessed the validity certificate of VJ in the year 2012 itself.

¶25

5.Considering that the petitioner possesses necessary documents
and it was only as the validity certificate was misplaced the same could
not be placed on record, we direct that, the approval to the admission
of the petitioner may not be refused only on the ground that on date
the admission was given the petitioner has not filed validity certificate
and Non Creamy Layer certificate.

¶26

2 of 3

¶27

3 969-wp 6285-2021.odt

¶28

6.It appears that, the respondent No. 4 college is also partly to be
blamed. The respondent No. 4 college ought to be diligent and should
have verified that all the necessary papers are available as on the last
date of admission itself.

¶29

7. We have passed the aforesaid order as the petitioner was issued and possessing documents before the given date, however, had misplaced on the said date.

¶30

8. With these aforesaid observations, writ petition is disposed of. No

¶31

costs.

¶32

( R. N. LADDHA )( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶33

P.S.B.

¶34

3 of 3

Jaspal Mahendrasingh Girase v. the Admission Regulating Authority Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaspal Mahendrasingh Girase v. the Admission Regulating Authority Mumbai and Others

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

Shamsundar Gowardhan Handibag Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jai Tulja Bhawani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Thr Its Secretary and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ali Haidar Khan Ajmal Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

Valmik Rajaram Garudkar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

Rajkumar Ambulal Agrawal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ram Dharmaraj Jogdand Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary and Others