The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition filed against a decision of a university to reject admission to a candidate belonging to the OBC category. A division bench of this Court comprising Hon’ble Justice G.S. Patel and Hon’ble Justice Neela Gokhale held that there is no such requirement that the NCL (“Non-creamy Layer”) certificate application must precede the registration process.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner completed his LLB from Government Law College, Mumbai in 2022. He applied for admission to the first-year LLM programme (full-time) under the OBC category at Mumbai University and got selected. The selected candidates were to register online against payment of Rs 100/-. The Petitioner logged in and began uploading his documents. One of the required documents was called a Non-Creamy Layer or NCL certificate. The Petitioner did submit such a certificate. However, its validity was only until 31st March 2022, i.e., it was no longer valid at the time when the Petitioner uploaded it.
While revising and checking the submission, the Petitioner realised this and immediately, on 28th December 2022, he applied for a renewal or a fresh NCL certificate. That very day, 28th December 2022, the Petitioner went to the law department at Mumbai University to rectify this error. He submitted the receipt for the fresh NCL certificate. This was within the time window specified. The complaint is that the 6th Respondent did not allow the Petitioner to rectify this error saying that the date of a receipt for the application for NCL certificate “could not be the same as the date of admission”
Observations of the Court
This Court find it hard to understand how the Petitioner could have been eliminated if he met the second alternative condition, namely, the production of a valid receipt for an NCL certificate application. In view of this Court, the ground taken by the Respondents can never be a ground for rejection as there is no such requirement that the NCL certificate application must precede the registration process.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court allowed the petitions and accepted the Petitioner’s undertaking that he will take admission in Group VI.
Case Title: Gaurav vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice G.S. Patel and Hon’ble Justice Neela Gokhale
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 2279 OF 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Gaurav Dhaye
Advocate for the Respondent No.1: Mrs. Uma Palsuledesai, Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni, and Mr. Makrand Bakore
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments