Bombay High Court: The petitioner filed the present petition challenging the order dated 30-08-2022 passed by Respondent 2, Mumbai University (‘the University’), by which the petitioner was held ‘not eligible’ for pursuing the degree course of B.Voc. (Interior Design). The Division Bench of A.S. Chandurkar and M.M. Sathaye*, JJ., opined that if the petitioner did not score the necessary cut-off points, it could not direct the University to lower the cut-off standard and there was nothing wrong with the University insisting upon meeting the criteria of scoring a minimum of 24 International Baccalaureate (‘IB’) points for being eligible to pursue the degree course as per its policy. The Court thus held that the impugned decision of holding the petitioner not eligible for pursuing B.Voc. (Interior Design) degree course was justified.
Background
The petitioner was pursuing two years of IB Diploma Programme (‘IBDP’) from R.B.K. Education Institute, Kanakia International School, Chembur and she gave her 12th IB board examination in April 2019. Since the admission process of many colleges usually commenced prior to the assessment and announcement of the final IB board result, the IB Board students were allowed to apply to the colleges after receiving a temporary/provisional eligibility certificate from the University.
The petitioner applied for eligibility certificate on 13-05-2019 for the course of B.A., asserting that she had appeared IBDP-2 exam and this was based on ‘predicted grades’ under the IB programme. Thus, an undated certificate was issued predicting that the petitioner would secure 25 points. Pursuant to this application, the University issued a ‘prima facie eligibility certificate’ for admission to First year B.A./B.M.S./B.Com/B.Com (A&F)/B.Com (B&I)/B.Com (F.M.)/B.M.M degree course for the academic year 2019-2020, ‘subject to condition that the petitioner must have to full pass in IB Diploma with minimum 24 credit points as show, in the predicted mark-sheet’.
The petitioner applied for B.Voc Interior Design degree course in Respondent 3, Rachna Sansad College, Mumbai (‘the College’) and gave an aptitude test, however, due to her low score in the aptitude test, she did not qualify. The College informed the petitioner that she could take admission in Certified Course of School of Interior Design which did not require aptitude test for the academic year 2019-2020 and in the next year she could again give entrance examination for first year of B.Voc degree course. The petitioner accordingly took admission in the first year of the certified course and after completing the first year of certified course, the petitioner again, appeared for aptitude test but did not score requisite marks. Thus, she could not be allotted a seat in the degree course. Since the College had certain seats reserved for management quota, the petitioner was allowed a seat in the first year of B.Voc degree course from the said quota.
The petitioner appeared for her exams of 3rd and 4th semesters and could not pass all subjects but was permitted on ATKT basis (allowed to keep term). Thereafter, she was to appear for ATKT exams when she got an email with a letter of the impugned decision from the University, stating that her admission in B.Voc Interior Design degree course stood cancelled as she had failed to meet the minimum 24 points requirement. The petitioner thereafter approached the College authorities, who, it was alleged initially supported her but when the dates for ATKT exams were declared by the University and she again approached the College, it was alleged that the attitude of the College authorities changed. Thus, the petitioner approached this Court.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that when the petitioner applied for temporary/provisional eligibility on 13-05-2019, the eligibility sought was for B.A. (degree course) and the application was based on predicted IB points of 25, as the results were not actually declared. The Court also noted that the actual points scored by the petitioner were 23 IB points, which was clear from the certificate issued by the petitioner’s school and even the transcript of grades produced by the petitioner showed total points as 22.
The Court opined that there was nothing wrong with the University insisting upon meeting the criteria of scoring a minimum of 24 IB points for being eligible to pursue the degree course as per its policy under the Circular No. Elg/O/19/2017.
The Court opined that if the petitioner did not score the necessary cut-off points, it could not direct the University to lower the cut-off standard. The Court stated that if the students like the petitioner choose to complete their schooling from IB board, which did not declare its result in time, which was necessary for them to apply to further courses, and if the University gave necessary accommodation of issuing provisional eligibility based on predicted marks and then if the student did not actually score as per prediction, as in the petitioner’s case, then the College or the University could not be blamed.
The Court relied on Parakh Jaiprakash Shahal v. Thakur College of Science and Commerce, 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 979, wherein this Court had held that since the petitioner had not secured the required marks, there was nothing wrong in admission being canceled.
The Court held that there was no merit in the present petition and the impugned decision to hold the petitioner not eligible for pursuing F.Y.B.Voc. (Interior Design) degree course was justified. The Court further held that the petitioner was at liberty to file appropriate proceedings for her grievance against the College about alleged late submission of IB certificate to the University resulting in alleged waste of academic year/s.
[Harshi Ramjiyani v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 10643 of 2023, decided on 03-02-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice M.M. Sathaye
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Advocate Sakshi Mane
For the Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader Reena A. Salunkhe, for Respondent 1-State; Advocate Girish J. Paryani, for Respondent 2—University; Abhishek Ingale a/w Pradeep Kumar, Advocates, i/b C.R. Naidu & Co, for Respondent 3—College.
