Bombay High Court Fines Institute ₹50,000 For Excess Admissions

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a student seeking permission to appear for examinations after being allowed to pursue a certificate course despite the institute exceeding its sanctioned intake.

The court's decision was made on September 8 in a petition filed by Janhavi Vinod Shegonkar against the State of Maharashtra and others.

The petitioner had sought directions for issuance of hall tickets and permission to appear for examinations for the Certificate Course in Health Sanitary Inspector at the Paras Skill Development Institute, Akola.

The institute had a sanctioned intake of 60 students, but 161 candidates had applied for the course.

The Maharashtra State Board of Skill, Vocational Education and Training maintained that only 60 candidates had been formally admitted and approved through the online admission process.

However, the petitioner and other similarly placed students contended that 101 students over and above the sanctioned intake had been admitted after paying fees.

They argued that they had continued with the course believing their admissions would eventually receive approval and sought permission to take the examinations to avoid academic loss.

The State authorities opposed the petition, arguing that the online records relied upon by the students were merely a list of applicants and not confirmation of admission.

The High Court accepted this contention and noted that the sanctioned intake was 60 and that 60 students had been formally admitted.

It held that the claim that all 161 applicants had been accepted by the Board was misleading.

The court also came down heavily on the institute, noting that despite being informed that its request for additional intake had been rejected, the institute allowed the 101 excess students to continue with the course.

The court described the conduct as unauthorised and said it suffered from 'malafides'.

The court dismissed the petition and directed the institute to pay ₹50,000 to the Bombay High Court Staff Welfare Fund within two weeks of the order being uploaded.

The competent authority had also earlier directed the institute to refund fees collected from the excess students.

This decision highlights the importance of adhering to sanctioned intake capacities and the consequences of unauthorized conduct by educational institutions.

The Bombay High Court's ruling serves as a reminder to institutions to prioritize transparency and compliance with regulatory guidelines.

In conclusion, the court's decision emphasizes the need for educational institutions to operate within the bounds of the law and respect the rights of students,