The court emphasized that objections to a student's eligibility should be raised at the beginning of the course and highlighted the relevant ordinances and previous court decisions supporting the petitioner's case.

JUDGMENT :

Jitendra Jain, J.

Rule. Mr.Shaikh, learned counsel waives service for respondent no.1 and Mr.Kelkar, learned counsel waives service for respondent no.2-University. By consent of parties, the petition is heard finally.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought appropriate writ directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to admit and appear for 6th semester examination of the said course.

3. Briefly, the facts are as under :-

(i) In June, 2019, the petitioner appeared for Maharashtra State Common Entrance Test (CET) for the course of 3 year LL.B. and cleared the CET. Respondent no.2 allotted admission to the petitioner in respondent no.1 college. The petitioner along with his application for CET and thereafter for admission to the allotted college, furnished all the documents including the mark sheet of 1st, 2nd and 3rd year of B.Com. exam. It was thereafter that the respondents admitted him to 3 year LL.B. course for the academic year 2019-20. The petitioner was allotted the college in OBC category.

(ii) The petitioner appeared in the first four semesters of the said course and cleared the exam with good marks. The petitioner also appeared for 5th semester examination held in December 2021. However, upon enquiry about the result of 5th semester and at the time of admission to 6th semester, he was informed by respondent no.1 that they have received communication from respondent no.2 that the petitioner was at the first instance not eligible for enrolling to LL.B. course since the average marks of 3 years integrated course of B.Com. was only 40.63%, which was less than the required percentage of 42% for OBC students. It is this action of the respondents which is challenged in the present petition.

4. The petitioner submits that he had given all the certificates which indicated the marks obtained by him at B.Com. level to the respondent nos.1 and 2. The respondents having allotted the seat in the college and the petitioner having completed 5 semesters out of 6 semesters, they were not justified in prohibiting the petitioner from completing the course on this ground. The petitioner further contended that the respondents were aware of the marks obtained by the petitioner and at the fag end of the course, such an action of the respondents is unfair and unreasonable. Respondent no.1 college had forwarded all the mark sheets and documents to respondent no.2 university in the year 2019 itself and it is only after more than 2 years, the university raised an objection about the eligibility of the petitioner. The petitioner submits that in an identical situation, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Aarti Harish Bhandari Vs. Shree L.R. Tiwari College of Law, Writ Petition No.7959 of 2021 decided on 25th November 2021 allowed the law student to complete the course. The petitioner also relied upon two more decisions i.e. (i) in the case of Qureshi Alsaba Zabir Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition No.2352 of 2021 decided on 23rd November 2021 and (ii) in the case of Azim Pashalal Kani Vs. Bar Council of India & Ors., Writ Petition No.3019 of 2021 decided on 17th August 2021 in support of his submissions. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that he be allowed to complete his law course.

5. Per contra, respondent no.1-college submits that in the admission form in the academic category details, the petitioner stated that he has obtained 48.17% marks against the Senior Secondary row in the year 2012 whereas the average marks obtained in all the three years of B.Com. was 40.63% as per the conversion certificate. Respondent no.1, however, did not dispute that seat was allotted based on the recommendations by respondent no.2 and subsequently the petitioner has completed 5 semesters out of 6 semesters.

6. Insofar as respondent no.2-University is concerned, they would contend that since the petitioner has not obtained minimum 42% marks at B.Com. level, they were justif