Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The facts of the case show that the petitioner had completed her Bachelors of Science in Fashion Technology (hereinafter as 'B.FT.') three-year course from the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda. Being desirous of securing admission in MFT course at NIFT, she applied for the entrance examination conducted by NIFT and secured a common merit rank 23 and category merit rank 16. Thereafter, she completed the required formalities and submitted all the available documents through online mode as prescribed by the NIFT. She was allowed to continue with the admission process and finally, on Digitally Signed Digitally Signed By:PRATIMA she duly paid her fee alongwith the hostel charges. By:PURUSHAINDRA Signing Date:08.11.2023 18:30:57 KUMAR KAURAV

7. Learned counsel, however, alternatively confines his prayer to the extent that the eligibility criteria prescribed by NIFT, which proscribes candidates such as the petitioner who have not secured a Digitally Signed By:PRATIMA Signing Date:08.11.2023 By:PURUSHAINDRA 18:30:57 KUMAR KAURAV B.FT. degree from NIFT, is in the teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it is not in tandem with the mandate of Sections 31 and 32 of the National Institute of Fashion Technology Act, 2006 (Act of 2006). He submits that the Bachelor's degree obtained by the petitioner is on an equal footing to the corresponding Bachelor's degree issued by NIFT. He, therefore, submits that a purposive interpretation of the provisions of the Act of 2006 is required to be made to appreciate the contentions raised by him.

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. According to him, the petitioner is not entitled for admission in NIFT as she has pursued a three years Bachelor's course namely B.FT., however, the prospectus of NIFT explicitly prescribes for a B.FT. degree from NIFT or B.E./B.Tech degree from any other University, to be eligible for the MFT programme. He also submits that she was informed on numerous occasions through email about her degree being ineligible for the MFT course.

iii. The existence of a consistent practice in the past which the person can reasonably expect to operate in the same way.

31. A perusal of the facts of the present case neither exhibits any express promise made by NIFT to the petitioner for granting admission without the prescribed eligibility nor the petitioner has shown any consistent practice on the part of NIFT, the benefits of which has not been extended to the petitioner. In fact, it was communicated to the petitioner on several occasions that her Bachelor's degree is ineligible for securing admission in MFT course. Therefore, the plea raised by the petitioner that it has a reasonable expectation to continue the admission provisionally granted by NIFT, is also devoid of any merit.