Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.74 seconds)Rajendra Prasad Mathur Etc vs Karnataka University & Anr on 1 May, 1986
Referring to the decisions in Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs.
Karnataka University and Anr., 1986 INSC 101 , Ashok Chand Singhvi Vs.
12/30
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
::: Uploaded on - 26/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2025 22:25:23 :::
University of Jodhpur and Ors., 1989 INSC 20 and Syeda Aufiya Ahmad
Vs. Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University and Ors., 2013(1)
Mh.L.J. 185, it was submitted that upholding the impugned
communications issued by the MUHS and the University of Mumbai at
this point of time would result in causing undue hardship to the
petitioners as they had spent precious years in pursuing higher education.
It was thus submitted that the impugned communications issued by the
MUHS and the University of Mumbai were liable to be quashed and
appropriate directions be issued to grant the petitioners their degree
certificates by holding their admissions to be valid.
Abdul Lateef Nomani vs University Of Delhi & Ors on 30 October, 2019
process. It was further stated that when a Board was recognised by the
State Government, it was not necessary for it to have a separate certificate
issued by the COBSE. By another communication dated 3 rd August 2015, it
was clarified by the COBSE that obtaining membership of the COBSE was
not essential but that the Board conducting examinations ought to be
11/30
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
::: Uploaded on - 26/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2025 22:25:23 :::
recognised by the Central Government or the State Government so that
the certificates issued had All India equivalence. Reference was made to
Office Memorandum dated 24th April 2017 issued by the Ministry of
Human Resource Development wherein it was stated that the COBSE had
not been established by the Ministry of Human Resource Development and
that membership of the COBSE did not result in automatic grant of status
as a recognized Board upon any member Board. Referring to the website
maintained by the BSE, Hubli it was submitted that even as on 4 th
September 2024, it was mentioned that the BSE, Hubli was registered and
recognised by the Government of Karnataka. On the aforesaid basis, it was
urged that the petitioners having bonafide pursued education and
obtained the Senior Secondary Certificate from the BSE, Hubli after which
they took admission in the respective Undergraduate Courses, the MUHS
was not justified in preventing the petitioners from pursuing higher
education on the ground that the BSE, Hubli was not registered with the
COBSE. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in
Abdul Lateef Nomani Vs. University of Delhi and Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine
Del 10856. It was then submitted that by virtue of various interim orders
passed by this Court, the petitioners had now completed their
undergraduate education successfully and were awaiting their degree
certificates.
Zaid Sheikh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through ... on 19 February, 2020
In Zaid Sheikh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., 2025
INSC 353, which decision was referred to by Mr. Rui Rodrigues, learned
counsel for the University of Mumbai, the ineligibility of the petitioner was
the subject matter of consideration before the Madhya Pradesh High
Court. When the proceedings were pending, the petitioner was permitted
to attend classes pursuant to interim orders. The High Court ultimately
dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was initially
ineligible to be admitted to the degree course for want of passing English
subject in the qualifying examination. In that context, it was observed that
26/30
MUHS - WP-4336-2016 with IA-16973-2022 & WP-4338-2016 & WP-6319-2016.doc
Dixit
::: Uploaded on - 26/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2025 22:25:24 :::
fulfilling the basic eligibility for admission was a sine qua non which ought
not to be overlooked or ignored. However, considering the facts of the case
and that the petitioner had thereafter appeared in the English subject
examination and had passed, coupled with the fact that he had completed
the entire course as well as mandatory internship, he was treated eligible
for completing the said course and internship as an eligible student.
1