"It amounts to a fraud on the public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications." Bombay HC

Division Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni on Wednesday dismissed the writ petition filed by a 23-year-old girl from reserved category against Jamunalal Bajaj Institute of Management. 

Admission was denied because of her ineligibility 

The petitioner after securing admission in the respondent-institute for pursuing Masters Course in Human Resource Development and paying fees in Excess of Rs.3 lakh sometime in October 2020, was informed about her ineligibility to secure admission through email, as she had not secured 55% marks at the Higher Secondary level examination. She was accordingly requested to mail her account details for refund of the fees collected. Aggrieved by the fact, she challenged the subject matter in a writ petition.  

Revoking admission would seriously prejudice her academic pursuit, argues the petitioner

The petitioner contended that “she had placed all her cards before the institute. There was no misrepresentation nor she can be accused of practising fraud. Having successfully crossed the various hurdles on the way for securing admission, the institute granted the petitioner Admission only at a later stage to deprive her the fruits of her Labour on the ground that she had not secured 55% at the Higher Secondary level examination”.  

Citing the Delhi High Court judgement in Javed Akhtar vs. Jamia Hamdard (2007 94 DRJ 299) case, Ms Kapadia, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that “the decision of the institute to revoke the petitioner’s admission at this stage would work out serious prejudice in her academic pursuit”. She also mentioned that the petitioner is the only one who qualified for and was granted admission for the reserved seat. Further, she pleaded before the bench that there being absolutely no fault on petitioner's part, the impugned communication ought to be quashed with further direction on the institute to permit her to pursue the course without interruption. 

"We cannot be a party of the fraudulent practice and allow the petitioner to continue with her studies in the course":- Bombay High Court  

Referring to the Supreme Court’s verdict in District Collector and Chairman vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi,(1990,3 SCC 655) case the court said that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned; the aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on the public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated in the advertisement that the qualifications are relaxable. No Court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice. 

The bench further mentioned that the court is not concerned with appointment but with admission to a course and the principles evolved in Tripura Sundari Devi case are clearly applicable in the present Circumstance. As the admission criteria included, inter alia, a stipulation that a candidate seeking admission in the Masters of Human Resource Development course as a reserved candidate must have secured 55% or above at the Higher Secondary level, despite being aware of this fact the petitioner took a chance of admission. Because the institute at the initial stage did not exercise diligence by scrutinizing the papers and allowed the petitioner not only to participate in the various stages prior to admission but also allowed her admission in the course and received the fees therefor.  

Thereafter, on deeper scrutiny, the institute ultimately came to the finding that the petitioner did not possess the required percentage of marks at the Higher Secondary level examination leading to the issuance of the communication impugned in this Writ Petition, whereby she was informed of her ineligibility as well as to mail her account details for refund of the fees. 

The court placed emphasis on the guidance provided by the Supreme Court in Tripura Sundari Devi's case and said that it cannot be a party to the fraudulent practice and allow the petitioner to continue her studies.

One does not know for sure, there could have been other reserved category candidates who might have secured more marks than the petitioner but less than the required marks and thus refrained from applying for admission, adhering to the terms of the notice issued by the institute. - Bombay HC

The Divison Bench was of the opinion that any order directing the institute to allow the petitioner to pursue the course would amount to the injustice being meted out to all such the candidates. 

In light of the above-mentioned dictum, the court dismissed the Petition.