Shubhi Ajay Rai vs The University of Mumbai & Ors.

(Per R.I. Chagla, J.)

By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has sought quashing and setting aside of the impugned letter dated 1st March 2025 addressed by the Respondent No.1 - University and impugned letter dated 29th May 2025 addressed by the Respondent No.2 – College. Further direction is sought against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to grant admission to the Petitioner for T.Y. B.Sc. (Computer Science) for the Academic Year 2025-2026.

The Petitioner, being a meritorious student, having completed her XII Standard from Commerce background (Mathematics and Statistics being one of the subjects), had a genuine aspiration to pursue higher education in the field of Information Technology and allied streams.

The Petitioner, during the admission process for Academic Year 2023-2024, approached Respondent No. 2 - S.I.E.S. College of Arts, Science and Commerce, (“College”) with the intention of seeking admission to B.Sc. (IT) programs.

On the advice of the Counsellor and Administrators of Respondent No. 2 - College, the Petitioner was specifically informed and advised that she was eligible for admission to both B.Sc. (IT) and B.Sc. (Computer Science) programs since she had mathematics as one of the subjects, despite her Commerce background in the XII Standard.

The Petitioner accordingly filled the admission form, indicating her preference for both B.Sc. (IT) and B.Sc. (Computer Science). The Petitioner's name appeared in the third merit list for the course of F.Y.B.Sc. (Computer Science) (“said Course”) for the Academic Year 2023-2024. The Petitioner was granted admission to the said Course and on payment of College fees, Respondent No. 2 -College issued identity card to the Petitioner.

The Petitioner successfully completed her First Year B.Sc. (Computer Science) and Second Year B.Sc. (Computer Science) in the Academic Years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 respectively.

When the admission process for T. Y. B.Sc. (Computer Science) for Academic Year 2025-2026 commenced, the Petitioner received the impugned letters declaring her "Not Eligible" for admission to F.Y.B.Sc. (Computer Science) and which stands cancelled on the ground of failing to meet the eligibility criteria viz. the candidate seeking admission to the said course should have passed XII Standard in Science stream with Mathematics subject as compulsory.

Accordingly, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

The Writ Petition had come up before this Court on 19th June 2025, when this Court passed an order issuing Rule and granting interim relief in favour of the Petitioner by directing Respondent No.1 – University and Respondent No.2 – College to grant admission to the Petitioner to the Third Year B.Sc. (Computer Science) for Academic Year 2025-26. The Petitioner was permitted to attend college and appear for the examination. However, the results were directed to be withheld. The impugned letters were accordingly stayed during the pendency of the Petition.

The Writ Petition had then come up on 16th March 2026 when this Court noted the prior order dated 19th June 2025 passed by this Court and the reason for the Writ Petition being circulated, namely that the Petitioner had taken the examination in the Third Year B.Sc. (Computer Science), but results had been withheld by virtue of the said order. This Court had accordingly directed Respondent No.1 - University and Respondent No. 2 - College to declare the result of the Petitioner for the examination which she had attended and this was made subject to the outcome of the Petition.

The pleadings have thereafter been completed by Respondent No. 1 - University filing Affidavit-in-Reply and thereafter by Respondent No. 2 – College, though initially stating that they were not desirous of filing Affidavit-in-Reply.

The Petition has now come up for hearing at a stage when the Petitioner has completed all three years of the B.Sc. (Computer Science) degree course.

Mr. Sunil Mishra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that due to no fault of the Petitioner, her admission to the Respondent No. 2 - College for the said Course has been cancelled. He has submitted that the Petitioner at the time of admission to the Respondent No. 2 - College did not have knowledge of the eligibility criteria, namely that for being eligible for the said course, the Petitioner would be required to pass the Higher Secondary School Certificate examination, (“H.S.C.”) Standard XII, in science stream with mathematics and statistics as one of the subjects or its equivalent. He has submitted that the Petitioner had completed her XII Standard from Commerce background, including Mathematics and Statistics being one of the subjects and, it was at no point in time during the admission process for the said course, intimated to the Petitioner by the Respondent No. 2 - College that she did not meet the eligibility criteria for the said course.

Mr. Rui Rodrigues, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 – University has submitted that the eligibility criteria for the said Course is prescribed under Ordinance 5719 viz. that the candidate must have passed the HSC examination in Science stream with Mathematics and Statistics, as one of the subjects or its equivalent. He has submitted that it is an admitted position that the Petitioner has not met the said eligibility criteria. Hence, she could not have been granted admission by Respondent No.2 – College.

Mr. Rodrigues has referred to the Circular dated 16th September 2023 issued by the Respondent No.1 – University laying down the procedure to be followed for Enrollment and Eligibility for the Academic Year 2023-24, (the Academic Year when the Petitioner had been admitted to the Respondent No.2 – College for the said Course). The Colleges were required to constitute an Admission Committee based on UGC guidelines and instructions. The College Admission Committee would require to scrutinize and verify the original marksheets and other documents of the students and submit verification report of authentication of documents to the University and then the admission is given as per the Ordinance and Circular of University of Mumbai. Further, eligible students will be given only one PRN and once only. The PRN would be valid as long as the student is enrolled with the University of Mumbai. The College must confirm the admission of the ‘Provisional Eligible Students’ and the admission of ‘Not Eligible’ students must be immediately cancelled.

Mr. Rodrigues has submitted that Respondent No.2 – College had failed to adhere to the procedure as per the said Circular dated 16th September 2023. This is borne out from the fact that for the relevant Academic Year 2023-24, the Respondent No.2 – College submitted applications in respect of 112 admitted students for enrollment and eligibility on 5th October 2023. Upon preliminary scrutiny of the applications submitted, it was found that 105 out of the 106 students from the Maharashtra State Board were eligible. Accordingly, the data was forwarded to MKCL, vide an email dated 29th May 2024, for uploading their status as ‘eligible’. The Petitioner remained ‘Provisionally Eligible’ as she did not fulfill the prescribed eligibility criteria. The Respondent No.2 – College though being required to immediately submit all the necessary documents which would indicate that the Petitioner was eligible for the said course, had belatedly submitted vide letter dated 19th October 2024, the Petitioner’s HSC Marksheet.

Mr. Rui Rodrigues has submitted that it was in these circumstances that the Respondent No.1 - University addressed a letter dated 13th February 2025 to the Respondent No.2 – College calling upon them to explain as to why an ineligible student had been granted admission to the said course. There was no response to the said communication. Accordingly, the Respondent No.1 – University issued the impugned letter dated 1st March 2025 declaring the Petitioner as ‘Not Eligible’ in terms of the said Ordinance 5719.

Mr. Rui Rodrigues has submitted that as per said the Circular dated 16th September 2023 it is the responsibility of the concerned College to verify the marks obtained, eligibility criteria and supporting documents of the students through the College Admission Committee, which is to be duly constituted by the College. The Respondent No.2 – College, which claims to be an autonomous College, admitted the Petitioner to the said course despite her ineligibility, which clearly indicates an error on the part of the College.

Mr. Rodrigues has referred to Section 122 of The Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 (‘the Act’). He has submitted that a College which claims to be an autonomous college under Section 122 of the Act, shall under Sub-Section 4 of Section 122 have full academic and administrative autonomy, however, this is subject to the provisions of this Act and Statutes and guidelines issued by the UGC from time to time. He has further referred to Section 108(1)(a) and (h) of the Act which provides that one of the conditions of affiliation and recognition is that the provisions of the Act and Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations made thereunder and standing orders and directions of the University and State Government shall be complied with. He has submitted that the Respondent No.2 – College having failed to comply with the said Ordinance and Circular dated 16th September 2025, which were binding on them, is required to be suitably penalized and though the University in such cases may even consider disaffiliation of the College, in the present case, suitable costs may be imposed upon them.

Mr. Rui Rodrigues has referred to the consistent view taken by this Court, namely that Colleges affiliated with the University shall scrupulously follow the norms regarding the verification of the eligibility/non eligibility. A failure to do so, would result in costs being imposed on the Colleges as has been imposed in Dhruv Bansal v. University of Mumbai & Ors^{11.Writ Petition No.6876 of 2025, Order dated 13th August 2025.}, and Amit Pukhraj Yadav v. State of Maharashtra & Ors^{22.Writ Petition No.7417 of 2025, Order dated 21st July 2025.}. He has submitted that this Court is required to impose costs on the Respondent No.2 – College payable to the Respondent No.1 – University.

Mr. Arvind Kothari, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 – College has placed reliance upon the Affidavit in Reply filed by Respondent No.2 – College. He has submitted that the Respondent No.2 – College, an autonomous affiliated College, had in exercise of statutory powers conferred under Section 122(2) and 122(3), through its Board of Studies (BoS), for the subject of Computer Science, convened a meeting on 20th August 2020 and deliberated upon the question of eligibility of Standard XII Commerce students with Mathematics for admission to F.Y. B.Sc. (Computer Science). The BoS having considered the matter in detail, passed a resolution on the same date, resolving that Standard XII Commerce students with Mathematics be treated as eligible for admission to F.Y. B.Sc (Computer Science) at par with Standard XII Science candidates. This recommendation of BoS was placed before the Academic Council of the Respondent No.2 – College at their meeting held on 25th November 2020. The Academic Council, after due consideration, accepted the said recommendation vide Resolution dated 22nd July 2024. He has submitted that the decision having received the approval of the highest academic body of the college, further reinforces its legitimacy and procedural soundness.

Mr. Kothari has submitted that Respondent No.2 – College had accordingly accepted the admission of the Petitioner in the said course, in line with the Resolution passed by the BoS treating the students such as the Petitioner, who was a Standard XII Commerce student with Mathematics, eligible for the said course at par with Standard XII Science candidates. He has submitted that the correspondence which followed with the Respondent No.1 – University was with an endeavour to assist the Petitioner in having her admission to the College for the said Course accepted by the University.

Mr. Kothari has submitted that the Respondent No.2 – College has at all times acted bonafide and there was no intention to violate the Ordinance or the said Circular issued by the Respondent No.1 – University. He has submitted that the Respondent No.2 – College, was at all times under the bonafide belief that the Petitioner, who is a Standard XII Commerce student with Mathematics, would be eligible for the said course.

Mr. Kothari has submitted that the Respondent No.2 – College has tendered its sincere apology to this Court as well as to the Petitioner for the hardship so occasioned and accordingly has sought for acceptance of the admission of the Petitioner by this Court.

Mr. Kothari has further submitted that the records of the College reflect delay on the part of the University in processing the admission and eligibility Merit List and enrollment/eligibility forms duly submitted by the affiliated Colleges. Had the eligibility status of the candidates concerned been finalized and communicated by the University in a timely manner and within the schedule contemplated in its own Circular, the divergence in the present matter could have been resolved at the threshold, well before the Petitioner progressed in the said Course.

Mr. Kothari has also referred to Paragraph 31 of the Affidavit in Reply, wherein the Respondent No.2 – College has stated that it is committed to the highest standards of academic administration and has continually reviewed and strengthened its internal processes. The College has formalized and reinforced its existing protocols and safeguards governing the admission and eligibility process, so as to ensure clarity and uniformity going forward, and for which it has highlighted the various measures taken by the College.

Mr. Kothari has submitted that the act of granting admission to the Petitioner by the Respondent No.2 – College does not suffer from any malafides. Accordingly, the College should not be penalized as suggested by the Respondent No.1 – University. The view taken by the BoS and the Academic Council of the Respondent No.2 – College in treating Standard XII Commerce candidates with Mathematics as eligible for admission to the said Course at par with the Standard XII Science candidates is a bonafide academic view taken by the College in exercise of its academic autonomy and which was placed transparently before the University through correspondence and representation forming part of the record. He has submitted that lapse and dereliction on the part of the College has been expressly denied and the College has at all times endeavored to strengthen its processes of admission as a matter of good governance.

Having considered the submissions, it is pertinent to note that the Petitioner is a meritorious student, and would suffer grave prejudice if relief sought for is not granted, particularly when she had been granted admission and completed the said Course. Further, this Court in the interim Order had considered this position in granting interim relief. It is by virtue of the interim order and subsequent order dated 16th March 2026 that the Petitioner has been not only allowed to appear for the examinations in the said course, but also have her results declared.

This Court, when faced with a similar case such as the present, where the Petitioner having been admitted to the College and thereafter completing the said course for which the admission had been granted, was of the view that the Petitioner’s education career should not be made to suffer, particularly when there is nothing on record to indicate that there is misrepresentation on the Petitioner’s part in being admitted to the College. Two such decisions have been relied upon by Mr. Rui Rodrigues for Respondent No.1 – University, viz. Dhruv Bansal (Supra) and Amit Pukhraj Yadav (Supra) in this context. This Court has come down heavily on the College in failing to scrupulously follow the norms regarding the verification of the eligibility/non eligibility of the Petitioner. In both these decisions, the College was made to pay costs to the University.

In the present case, Mr. Kothari for Respondent No.2 – College has contended that the College being an autonomous college had passed a resolution through the BoS whereby it was resolved that Standard XII Commerce students with Mathematics be treated as eligible for admission to the said course at par with Standard XII Science candidates. This recommendation had thereafter been approved by the Academic Council of the College. However, we are of the view that such approval and granting of admission to the Petitioner based on such approval is contrary to the provisions of the Act, namely Section 122(4) read with 108 (1) (a) & (h). Section 122(4) provides that even where the college has autonomous status and full academic and administrative autonomy, this would be subject to the provisions of the Act and Statutes and the guidelines issued by the University Grant Commission (UGC), from time to time. Further, under Sections 108(1) (a) & (h) of the Act one of the conditions of affiliation or recognition of the College is that the provisions of the Act and Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations made thereunder and the Standing Orders and directions of the University and State Government are mandatorily to be complied. This would include in the present case Ordinance 5719 which provides the eligibility criteria for the said Course.

Under the eligibility criteria, the Respondent No.2 – College could not have admitted the Petitioner as she had not passed Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination (HSC Standard XII) in Science stream conducted by the Maharashtra State Board for Secondary and Higher Secondary Education with Mathematics and Statistics as one of the subjects or its equivalent. Further, the Respondent No.2 – College had not adhered to the Circular dated 16th September 2023, which apart from providing the constitution of an Admission Committee, based on the UGC guidelines and instructions, had not immediately cancelled the admission of ‘Not Eligible’ students such as the Petitioner.

The Respondent No.2 – College had belatedly, vide letter dated 19th October 2024, submitted the Petitioner’s HSC Marksheet to the Respondent No.1 – University in connection with her enrollment along with the other students for the Academic Year 2023-24. This was inspite of the Petitioner having been made ‘Provisionally Eligible’ as she did not fulfill the prescribed eligibility criteria. It was in these circumstances that the letter dated 13th February 2025 was addressed by Respondent No.1 – University to Respondent No.2 – College calling upon them to explain why an ineligible student had been granted admission to the said course. It is pertinent to note that the Respondent No.2 – College did not respond to the letter dated 13th February 2025. This was followed by the impugned letter dated 1st March 2025 issued by the Respondent No.1 – University declaring the Petitioner as ‘Not Eligible’ in terms of Ordinance 5719.

We, accordingly, find fault with the conduct of the Respondent No.2 – College as they have acted contrary to the standing orders of the Respondent No.1 – University. They have also acted in violation of Ordinance 5719. We adopt the view taken by this Court in Dhruv Bansal (Supra) and Amit Pukhraj Yadav (Supra) that the Petitioner’s educational career should not be made to suffer on this count. This is particularly when we do not find fault with the Petitioner but the fault lies at the door of the Respondent No.2 – College. There is also no misrepresentation on the part of the Petitioner in being granted admission by the Respondent No.2 – College for the said course. The Petitioner, having now completed the said course pursuant to the interim orders passed, we are inclined to allow the present Writ Petition.

We also follow the view taken in the aforesaid decisions that the College is required to be penalized for its conduct in granting admission to the Petitioner, knowing fully well that the Petitioner had not met with the eligibility criteria for the said Course. Accordingly, we impose costs on the Respondent No.2 – College, payable to the Respondent No.1 – University.

Hence, the following order is passed:-