Contradictory Information On Eligibility For LLB, Bombay High Court Grants Relief To Law Aspirant

The Bombay High Court today set aside the University of Mumbai's decision to deny admission to a law aspirant over confusion regarding the grading system of the International Baccalaureate (IB) students to the LLB program.

The court allowed a petition filed by Anoushka Tusharkumar Desai, 20, challenging the varsity's notices declaring her ineligible for the 5-year LLB course despite securing 60% marks in IB. The university cited equivalence norms requiring IB students to secure 24 credit points, whereas Desai had only 22 points.

"There appears to be some contradiction and confusion between what is stated in the AIU procedure and what is stated in the Circular issued by the University and the Information Brochure of State CET. In such a scenario, the benefit has to be given to the Petitioner," the division bench of Justices Jitendra Jain and A S Chandurkar observed.

The court noted that the Information Brochure of AIU (Association of Indian Universities) expressly states that AIU does not entertain application for equivalence of degrees in discipline like medicine, nursing, pharmacy, law, etc. which are presently outside its purview and these cases are handled by the respective professional councils.

Therefore, there was a contradiction and confusion between what is stated in the AIU procedure and what is stated in the Circular issued by the University and the Information Brochure of State CET, the court said.

In the Information Brochure of State CET there is no such mention of score points, but what is required to be considered is only percentage of marks, whereas in the Circular of Respondent No.2 (Mumbai University) dated 20th August 2014 it is stated that IB Diploma Courses with 24 points be made eligible for courses of law. However, the AIU brochure states that law courses is outside its purview.

“In our view, in the midst of this confusion and contradiction, it would be unfair and unjust to hold the Petitioner ineligible by Respondent No.2 moreso, when the Circular of Respondent No.2 dated 20th August 2014 is not addressed to the students, but to the colleges and what a candidate is required to read is the Information Brochure issued by the State CET.”

"The Petitioner cannot be found to be at any fault. It would be unfair and unjust to hold the Petitioner ineligible," it said.

Advocate Anita Castelino, represented the student while advocate Gaurav Sharma appeared for the university.

The court directed the university to regularize the petitioner's admission and also quashed the ineligibility notices issued to the student.

Case status - Anoushka Tusharkumar Desai vs State of Maharashtra

Click Here To Read/Download Order