BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties.

2. The Petitioner, a student has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court praying for quashing and setting aside the action on the part of the Director, Higher Education through Nodal Officer for CET and CAP dated 18th September, 2018, thereby declaring the Petitioner ineligible for an admission to LLB (three years course) for the academic session 2018-2019.

3. The Petitioner has completed his graduation from the Mumbai University and being desirous of securing a degree in LLB applied for the CET examination of MAHLLB three years CET – 2018. The result of the said examination was declared by the competent authority/Commissioner State Common Entrance State Cell, Mumbai i.e. Respondent no.2, on 29th June, 2018. On the basis of the mark secured, the Petitioner was allotted a rank at 2069 in the Maharashtra merit list. It is also to be noted that the Petitioner participated in the said process as a Maharshtra State Candidature, and it is the case of the Petitioner that he satisfied all the norms and stipulations so to avail a seat from the said category. After the CAP round, the Petitioner was alloted Vidya Prasarak Mandal, Thane's VPM's Thane Municipal Council Law College, Thane, by Respondent no.2 and by the said communication he was informed that he was provisionally admitted to the 1st year of LLB (three year course) for the academic year 2018-2019 in the second round of online admission process based on his CET performance. It was also directed that the candidate should report to the college on or before 19th September, 2018. After this when the Petitioner approached the college seeking admission, he was informed that he cannot be granted admission as his case was different and it was further informed that the matter will be referred to the competent authority i.e. Respondent no.2. The Petitioner, therefore, approached Respondent no.2 and was informed by Respondent no.2 by communication dated 18th September, 2018 that he was not eligible for an admission to LLB (three years course) on the basis of his final year marks since he was an old pattern candidate where the degree has been awarded and the class is given on the basis of final year marks.

The Petitioner has placed on record the said email addressed by the competent authority to the Principal of the College in which the Petitioner was awarded a seat and it reads thus:

“Respected Principal,

We have gone through marks memo/marks list of the candidate. The candidate has filled the marks of all years since he was not eligible on the basis of the final year marks. The candidate is old pattern candidate where in the degree has been awarded and the class given on the basis of the final year marks. The candidate is not eligible since University has awarded him pass class on the basis of final year marks 256/600 = 42.66%.

The mail is also sent to the candidate.

Regards.

Office of the Commissioner

State CET Cell,

Maharashtra State.”

The grievance of the Petitioner revolves around the said communication.

4. The learned Counsel Mr. Warunjikar appearing for the Petitioner would submit that Respondent authority had erred in holding that the Petitioner belongs to the old pattern and he would submit that the Petitioner has completed his first and second year from the new course and the third year from the old course from Mumbai University. Mr. Warunjikar invited our attention to the criteria prescribed by the admission authorities for 'Maharashtra State Candidature' and he would submit that the eligibility criteria prescribed, required a candidate to possess 45% marks in the graduate course and this was clarified to be 45% for all the parts of the degree examination taken together and according to Mr. Warunjikar the aggregate total of degree examination marks of the Petitioner comes out to be 59.41% and therefore his specific submission is that Respondent no.2 has not adhered to its own broch