Institute Admits 101 Students Beyond Sanctioned Intake Despite Rejection; Bombay HC Denies Exam Relief and Imposes ₹50,000 Costs

The Petitioner claimed admission to the Certificate Course in Health Sanitary Inspector for the academic year 2025–2026 at Respondent No. 4-Institute.

She relied on an online list showing 161 students, including herself, and contended that fees had been paid and the admissions had been accepted by the authorities.

The sanctioned intake of the Institute was 60 students.

The Institute had sought permission for additional intake, but its applications were rejected by the authorities on 4 December 2025 and again on 8 April 2026; the Institute was also warned that admitting students beyond the sanctioned intake would attract statutory penalties.

The Petitioner and similarly placed students sought permission to appear for the course examinations scheduled in July 2026.

During the proceedings, the competent authority passed an order dated 25 June 2026 treating the admissions of 101 students as unauthorized, refusing them permission to take the examination, directing refund of fees, and imposing a penalty on the Institute.

The Institute’s appeal against that order was stated to be pending, without any stay having been granted.

Whether the Petitioner and the similarly placed students, who were admitted beyond the Institute’s sanctioned intake, were entitled to be permitted to appear for the Certificate Course examinations.

Whether the Petitioner’s reliance on the online list of 161 students constituted a misleading statement and disentitled her from relief on the ground that she had not approached the Court with clean hands.

Whether Respondent No. 4-Institute’s conduct in admitting 101 students beyond the sanctioned intake warranted the imposition of costs.

The Court applied the Maharashtra Unauthorized Institutions and Unauthorized Courses of Study in Agriculture, Animal and Fishery Sciences, Health Sciences, Higher Technical and Vocational Education (Prohibition) Act, 2013, under which admitting students beyond the approved intake is unauthorized and may attract penalties.

It applied the equitable principle that a litigant seeking writ relief must approach the Court with complete candour and clean hands; a misleading or suppressed material fact may, by itself, justify dismissal.

In this context, the Court relied on S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1, as followed in Jagdish Ramnaresh Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, W.P. No. 6624 of 2026.

The Court also relied on Nandini Prakash Ingawale v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3847, for the principle that an institute which improperly admits students and collects fees must refund the fees and may be burdened with costs.

The Court found that the sanctioned intake was 60 students and that the Institute had admitted 60 candidates against the approved capacity.

The 101 additional students had merely appeared in a list of applicants on the online portal; their applications had not been scrutinised, validated, or accepted as sanctioned admissions by Respondent No. 2.

Accordingly, the Petitioner’s assertion that all 161 students had been admitted and that their admissions had been accepted by the authority was materially misleading, warranting dismissal on the clean-hands doctrine.

Independently, the Institute had admitted the excess students despite express rejection of its application for enhanced intake and a warning of statutory consequences.

Its continued conduct created the impression that the students’ admissions were valid and could not be justified by past instances of additional intake or by the pendency of an appeal without a stay.

The Court therefore declined to direct the authorities to permit the students to sit for the examinations and held that the Institute’s conduct justified an award of costs.

The Court held that the Petitioner and the similarly placed students had no enforceable right to appear for the examinations because the 101 admissions were beyond the sanctioned intake and unauthorized.

Respondent No. 4-Institute was directed to pay ₹50,000 as costs to the High Court Staff Welfare Fund, Bombay, within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order.