Bombay High Court Upholds Mumbai University’s Decision to Cancel Admission After Two Years: “Court Cannot Direct University to Lower Cut-off Standards; IB Students Must Meet Minimum Eligibility Criteria, Provisional Admission Does Not Create Vested Right”

Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition challenging the decision of Mumbai University, which declared the petitioner ineligible for the B.Voc. (Interior Design) degree course after two years of study. The court upheld the university’s policy requiring a minimum 24 IB points, and since the petitioner had only scored 23 points, her admission was rightly canceled.

The court ruled that:

1. The university’s eligibility criteria were valid and binding.
2. The petitioner’s admission was always conditional, subject to meeting the IB score requirement.
3. The court cannot interfere in academic standards set by universities or lower the required cut-off.

The petition was dismissed, though the court granted the petitioner the liberty to pursue action against the college for alleged delays in submitting her IB certificate to the university.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was a student of the International Baccalaureate (IB) board, who had completed her schooling and applied for admission to Rachna Sansad College, Mumbai, for the B.Voc. (Interior Design) degree course.

Admission Process and Provisional Eligibility

• Since IB results are typically released after college admissions begin, students apply with predicted grades and receive a provisional eligibility certificate from Mumbai University.
• The petitioner applied for provisional eligibility on May 13, 2019, and received a certificate stating that her eligibility was conditional on securing a minimum of 24 IB points in her final results.
• Her predicted grades suggested she would score 25 points, but when the final IB results were released in July 2019, she had only scored 23 points (or possibly even 22, according to her transcript).

Admission to the B.Voc. (Interior Design) Course

• The petitioner initially applied for the B.Voc. (Interior Design) course, but she failed the aptitude test required for admission.
• The college offered her an alternative: she could enroll in a Certificate Course in Interior Design for the first year and then apply for the degree program again.
• The following year (2020-21), she reattempted the aptitude test but again failed to score the required marks.
• However, she was granted admission under the management quota and completed her first-year coursework online due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cancellation of Admission

• The petitioner continued her studies, but when she was about to appear for ATKT exams (for subjects she had failed), she received a letter from Mumbai University on August 30, 2022, canceling her admission.
• The university’s decision was based on the fact that she did not meet the required 24 IB points, a condition explicitly stated in her provisional eligibility certificate.

The petitioner then filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of her admission after two years of study.

Issues Before the Court

1. Was Mumbai University justified in canceling the petitioner’s admission after two years?
2. Did the provisional eligibility certificate create a vested right for the petitioner?
3. Did the delay in submitting the IB certificate to the university cause unfair harm to the petitioner?
4. Could the court intervene to grant relief, considering the petitioner had already completed two years of the course?

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner, through her counsel, argued that:

1. Cancellation after two years was unfair:
   • She had already completed two years of study and had invested significant time and effort in the program.
   • At such a stage, it would be unjust to cancel her admission and waste her academic career.
2. She had relied on the university’s initial approval:
   • She had been granted provisional eligibility, which led her to believe she was eligible for the course.
   • The delay in cancellation (only after two years) amounted to unfair treatment.
3. The university’s delay was the problem, not hers:
   • The IB results were declared in July 2019, but the university canceled her admission only in August 2022.
   • She argued that this delay should not be held against her.
4. She had validly pursued alternative routes to admission:
   • Since she failed the aptitude test, she initially joined a Certificate Course and later gained admission to B.Voc. through the management quota.

The petitioner relied on two precedents:

• Abha George v. AIIMS
• Rohan Ravindra Thatte v. University of Mumbai

Both cases involved students challenging admission cancellations after they had already started their studies.

Respondent’s Arguments

Arguments of Mumbai University:

• The eligibility requirement of 24 IB points was non-negotiable and clearly stated in the provisional eligibility certificate.
• The petitioner had applied based on predicted grades (25 points), but her actual IB result was only 23 points.
• The provisional eligibility was only for the B.A. program, not the B.Voc. program, which had separate requirements.
• The petitioner had no absolute right to admission if she did not meet the final eligibility criteria.

Arguments of the College:

• The petitioner failed to provide her IB results on time—she allegedly submitted them only in August 2022, at which point the university promptly canceled her admission.
• The college did not contribute to any delays, as the university made its decision immediately upon receiving the IB certificate.

The college relied on the judgment in Parakh Jaiprakash Shahal v. Thakur College, which upheld the cancellation of a student’s admission because they failed to meet IB score requirements.

Analysis of the Law

The court examined:

1. University Regulations:
   • The university had a valid rule requiring a minimum of 24 IB points for eligibility.
   • Since the petitioner failed to meet this requirement, she was rightly declared ineligible.
2. Provisional Eligibility Certificates:
   • These certificates are conditional, meaning students must meet the final score requirement before their admission is confirmed.
   • Since the petitioner failed to meet the condition, her admission was rightly canceled.
3. Judicial Non-Interference in Academic Standards:
   • Courts should not interfere with university standards unless they are arbitrary or unconstitutional.
   • The court ruled that it cannot direct the university to lower its eligibility criteria.

Precedent Analysis

• Parakh Jaiprakash Shahal v. Thakur College:
  • A student who did not meet the IB score requirement was denied admission, and the court upheld the university’s decision.
  • This case was similar to the petitioner’s case, making it directly applicable.
• Abha George v. AIIMS and Rohan Ravindra Thatte v. University of Mumbai:
  • These cases did not involve provisional eligibility based on predicted grades, making them irrelevant to the present case.

Court’s Reasoning

• The petitioner’s actual IB score (23 points) did not meet the required 24 points.
• The university had acted promptly upon receiving the IB certificate from the college.
• The provisional eligibility was conditional, and the petitioner did not satisfy the condition.
• The court found no fault in the university’s actions and ruled that the admission was correctly canceled.

Conclusion

The court ruled:

• The petition lacked merit and was dismissed.
• The university’s decision was justified, and the petitioner was rightly declared ineligible.
• However, the petitioner could file a separate case against the college if she believed they delayed submitting her IB certificate.

Implications of the Judgment

• Universities are not obligated to relax eligibility criteria even if a student has studied for two years.
• Provisional eligibility does not guarantee final admission if the student fails to meet the cut-off.
• IB students should ensure they meet final score requirements to avoid losing their admission later.
• The judgment reinforces the importance of academic standards and university regulations.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Rejects Suit Challenging Registered Sale Deed: Holds That Oral Agreements Cannot Override Written Contracts, Fraud Allegations Already Quashed, and Non-Payment of Court Fee Makes Suit Liable for Rejection