Bombay High Court Dismisses Students’ Plea to Sit for Exams After Institute Exceeded Sanctioned Intake; Finds Misleading Pleadings, Unauthorized Admissions and Imposes Costs
Bombay High Court Refuses Relief to 101 Excess Students; Holds Institute Acted in Blatant Violation After Additional Intake Request Was Rejected
Facts
The petitioner, Janhavi Vinod Shegonkar, approached the Bombay High Court seeking directions to the authorities to issue hall tickets and permit her and similarly situated students to take the demo, practical and final examinations for the Certificate Course in Health Sanitary Inspector for Academic Year 2025–2026.
The petitioner claimed that Respondent No. 4 Institute had uploaded information concerning 161 students, including her, on the relevant web portal along with their fees and that their admissions had thereby been accepted by the competent authority.
However, the sanctioned intake for the Institute was only 60 seats.
The Institute had repeatedly sought permission for additional intake but its request was rejected. The authorities had also warned that admitting students beyond the sanctioned intake could attract penalties under 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.
Despite this, the Institute continued with the additional students.
During pendency of the writ petition, the competent authority passed an order dated 25 June 2026, holding the admissions of 101 students beyond the sanctioned intake to be unauthorized, refusing them permission to appear for examinations, directing refund of fees, imposing penalty upon the Institute and requiring an undertaking.
Issues
The principal issues before the Court were:
- Whether the petitioner and similarly situated students had been validly admitted to the Certificate Course.
- Whether uploading their names and payment details on the online portal amounted to approval or acceptance of admission by the State authorities.
- Whether students admitted beyond the sanctioned intake could claim a right to appear for the examinations on grounds of legitimate expectation, bona fide belief or academic loss.
- Whether the writ petition deserved dismissal because the petitioner had made a misleading statement regarding approval of the admissions.
- Whether the Institute’s conduct in continuing excess students despite rejection of its intake-enhancement request warranted adverse consequences and costs.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that she and the similarly situated students had paid their fees and had been allowed to pursue the course.
She relied on the list of 161 students, including the 101 excess students, appearing on the State web portal and contended that this indicated acceptance of their admissions.
She further argued that the students had not been informed that the Institute’s request for additional intake had been rejected and had therefore continued the course under the impression that the State might eventually regularize or absorb them.
The petitioner invoked legitimate expectation, contending that students should not suffer for the Institute’s lapse when they had acted in good faith and substantially completed the course.
State’s Arguments
The State contended that the petitioner’s central factual assertion was incorrect.
According to the official portal records:
- the sanctioned intake was 60;
- the Institute had validly admitted exactly 60 students;
- those 60 admissions were approved; and
- the remaining 101 persons were merely applicants whose admissions were never confirmed or approved.
The State submitted that mere application, generation of details or payment of application fees does not amount to scrutiny, verification, validation or acceptance of admission.
It therefore argued that the petitioner had deliberately used the word “accepted” despite there being no order or communication evidencing any approval by the competent authority.
On this basis, the State sought dismissal of the petition for lack of clean hands and relied upon authorities concerning suppression and misleading pleadings.
Institute’s Arguments
The Institute contended that it had repeatedly sought enhancement of its intake and genuinely believed that such permission would be granted.
It argued that the students had completed substantial portions of the course, that similar relief had been extended in other cases, and that the Institute had adequate infrastructure to accommodate the additional intake.
The Institute also pointed out that it had filed an appeal against the competent authority’s order dated 25 June 2026.
However, the High Court held that merely filing an appeal without obtaining any stay did not justify treating the operative order as ineffective.
Analysis of the Law
1. Mere portal listing does not create a valid admission
The Court examined the official material and found that only 60 seats had been sanctioned and only 60 students had actually been approved through the online admission system.
The 101 additional persons had not secured valid admissions merely because their names or application details appeared on the portal.
This distinction was decisive.
The Court accepted the State’s submission that an online application or fee-related entry is not equivalent to administrative approval of admission.
2. Writ relief requires clean hands
The Court held that the petitioner had made a misleading assertion that the admissions of all 161 students had been accepted by the competent authority.
This went to the root of the relief sought.
The Court therefore held that the petitioner had approached the Court with unclean hands, and that this ground alone was sufficient to dismiss the petition.
3. Legitimate expectation cannot arise from an unauthorized act
Although the students contended that they had been allowed to continue with the course and therefore expected approval, the Court found that the Institute itself had continued them despite knowing that its request for enhanced intake had been rejected.
Accordingly, the continuation of classes could not transform an unauthorized admission into a lawful one.
4. Pending appeal does not suspend an order
The Court also rejected the argument that the competent authority’s order had not attained finality merely because an appeal was pending.
In the absence of a stay, the order continued to operate.
Precedent Analysis
The State relied upon Jagdish Ramnaresh Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, which in turn referred to the Supreme Court decision in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath.
The principle relied upon was that a litigant approaching the Court must disclose all material documents and cannot obtain relief by suppressing or misrepresenting relevant facts.
The Court also referred to Nandini Prakash Ingawale & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, observing that where an institution admits students despite non-fulfilment of requisite conditions and collects fees, the management may be required both to refund the fees and bear costs for its conduct.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found on the official records that the Institute’s sanctioned intake was only 60 students.
The petitioner and the remaining 100 excess students were therefore never validly admitted within the sanctioned strength.
The Court was particularly critical of the petitioner’s assertion that all 161 students had been accepted by the authority merely because their information appeared on the portal.
It held that this statement was misleading and disentitled the petitioner to discretionary writ relief.
The Court was equally critical of the Institute.
By December 2025, the Institute knew that its request for additional intake had been rejected. It was also specifically warned of the statutory consequences of admitting students beyond sanctioned capacity.
Yet it nevertheless continued 101 excess students, creating an impression among them that their admissions were valid.
The Court described this conduct as being in “blatant violation” of the Act and found that the impression created among students suffered from mala fides apart from being unauthorized.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition.
It held that the petitioner had failed to establish any valid approved admission and had approached the Court on the basis of a misleading factual assertion.
The Court further held that the Institute’s conduct could not be exonerated, particularly because it continued 101 students despite knowing that additional intake had been rejected.
Accordingly, the Court imposed ₹50,000 costs upon Respondent No. 4 Institute, payable to the High Court Staff Welfare Fund, Bombay, within two weeks.
Case Details
Case: Janhavi Vinod Shegonkar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Court: Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 7978 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:36807-DB
Bench: Justice R.I. Chagla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla
Reserved On: 24 August 2026
Pronounced On: 8 September 2026
Result: Writ petition dismissed; excess admissions held unauthorized; petitioner found to have made misleading pleadings; Institute directed to pay ₹50,000 costs.
