Shubhi Ajay Rai vs The University Of Mumbai, Through Its Registrar

Court
Bombay High Court

CNR No : HCBM020176382025

2026:BHC-OS:23442-DB

wpl-17636-2025.doc
jsn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 17636 OF 2025
Shubhi Ajay Rai ...Petitioner
Digitally
signed by
JITENDRA
SHANKAR
NIJASURE
Date:
2026.10.29
15:04:20
+0530
JITENDRA
SHANKAR
NIJASURE
Versus
The University of Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents
----------
Mr. Sunil D. Mishra for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rui A. Rodrigues, for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Arvind Kothari with Ms. Nandini Govind Menon for the
Respondent No.2.
Mr. Vikram Parshurami, AGP for Respondent No.3.
----------
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
Reserved on : 16TH OCTOBER 2026.
Pronounced on : 29TH OCTOBER 2026.
JUDGMENT : (Per R.I. Chagla, J.)
1. 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.
1/19
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 08:27:41

wpl-17636-2025.doc
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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The Petitioner accordingly filled the admission form,
2/19
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 08:27:41

wpl-17636-2025.doc
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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
9. The Writ Petition had come up before this Court on 19th
3/19
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 08:27:41

wpl-17636-2025.doc
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.
10. 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.
11. 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
4/19
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 08:27:41

wpl-17636-2025.doc
not desirous of filing Affidavit-in-Reply.
12. 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.
13. 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.
5/19
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 08:27:41

wpl-17636-2025.doc
14. 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.
15. 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
6/19
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 08:27:41

wpl-17636-2025.doc
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.
16. 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.
7/19
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 08:27:41

wpl-17636-2025.doc
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Mr. Rodrigues has referred to Section 122 of The
Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 (‘the Act’). He has
8/19
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 08:27:41

wpl-17636-2025.doc
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.
20. 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
9/19
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 08:27:41

wpl-17636-2025.doc
result in costs being imposed on the Colleges as has been imposed in
1
Dhruv Bansal v. University of Mumbai & Ors , and Amit Pukhraj
2
Yadav v. State of Maharashtra & Ors . He has submitted that this
Court is required to impose costs on the Respondent No.2 – College
payable to the Respondent No.1 – University.
21. 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
1
Writ Petition No.6876 of 2025, Order dated 13th August 2025.
2
Writ Petition No.7417 of 2025, Order dated 21st July 2025.
10/19
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 08:27:41

wpl-17636-2025.doc
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.
22. 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.
23. 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
11/19
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 08:27:41

wpl-17636-2025.doc
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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. Mr. Kothari has also referred to Paragraph 31 of the
12/19
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 08:27:41

wpl-17636-2025.doc
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.
27. 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
13/19
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 08:27:41

wpl-17636-2025.doc
has been expressly denied and the College has at all times
endeavored to strengthen its processes of admission as a matter of
good governance.
28. 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.
29. 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
14/19
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 08:27:41

wpl-17636-2025.doc
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.
30. 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.
15/19
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 08:27:41

wpl-17636-2025.doc
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.
31. 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.
32. The Respondent No.2 – College had belatedly, vide letter
16/19
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 08:27:41

wpl-17636-2025.doc
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.
33. 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
17/19
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 08:27:41

wpl-17636-2025.doc
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.
34. 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.
35. Hence, the following order is passed:-
(i) The impugned letters dated 1st March 2025 and 29th May
2025 issued by Respondent No.1 – University and Respondent
No.2 – College respectively, are quashed and set aside.
(ii) The Respondent No.1 – University and Respondent No.2 –
College shall consequential to (i) above, issue the marksheets
18/19
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 08:27:41

wpl-17636-2025.doc
and/or degree certificates for the B.Sc (Computer Science) course
in favour of the Petitioner, having successfully completed the said
Course.
(iii) The Respondent No.2 – College shall pay costs of
Rs.50,000/- to Respondent No.1 – University, payable within a
period of two weeks from the uploading of this Order.
(iv) The Writ Petition is disposed of in these terms.

[ FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J. ] [ R.I. CHAGLA J. ]
19/19
Uploaded on - 29/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 08:27:41
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)