Constructive notice of results and revaluation timelines through official circulars precludes claims of administrative lapse.

The Petitioner, an LL.M. student at Agnel’s School of Law, failed two subjects in the Semester-I backlog examination conducted by Mumbai University

The University had previously issued Circular No. 61 of 2025 (dated May 5, 2025) stipulating that revaluation applications must be submitted online within a window starting 7 days after result declaration and lasting for 12 days

The results were declared on November 18, 2025, and the revaluation link was active from December 1 to December 13, 2025

During this window, 246 other students successfully applied

The Petitioner failed to apply, claiming he was unaware of the results due to the University’s failure to publish a specific notification on its website

He sought a writ of mandamus to reopen the revaluation link and allow his admission to the second year

1. Whether the University’s failure to publish a separate notification regarding the declaration of results on its official website constituted an arbitrary lapse violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

2. Whether a student can seek the reopening of a revaluation link after the expiry of a prescribed statutory timeline communicated via a general circular

The court applied the principle of "constructive notice," holding that a duly published university circular serves as sufficient notice to all stakeholders

It relied on the precedent of *Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth (1984 4 SCC 27)*, which establishes that statutory boards have the autonomy to formulate policies on examination conduct, evaluation procedures, and the finalization of results

The court also invoked the doctrine from *Union of India v. Mohanlal Kapoor (1974 1 SCR 797)*, asserting that the principles of natural justice (*audi alteram partem*) do not extend to the "twilight zone of mere expectation"

Furthermore, Article 14 of the Constitution was cited to emphasize that granting exclusive relief to one negligent student would constitute unfair discrimination against those who followed the rules

The Court reasoned that Circular No. 61 of 2025 provided clear, unambiguous timelines for revaluation, and since 246 other students (including one from the Petitioner's own college) successfully applied, the system was transparent and functional

The Court rejected the Petitioner’s argument that results must be notified in a specific format, holding that the University as a statutory body cannot be dictated to beyond the requirements of law

The Court found the Petitioner’s interpretation of the circular—claiming it applied only to specific professional courses—to be a "misreading" of the document

Additionally, the Court noted that the Petitioner approached the Court on January 19, 2026, well after the revaluation process had concluded and the next semester had commenced; therefore, "setting the clock back" would be academically unproductive and inequitable

It held that there was no infringement of fundamental rights or breach of statutory duty by the University

The Court concluded that granting the Petitioner a "backdoor entry" by reopening the revaluation link solely for him would violate the mandate of Article 14, which requires equals to be treated equally

No order was made as to costs