Bombay High Court dismissing writs of two LL.B aspirants held that High Courts would not entertain such writs for rounding off the marks of students who fell short by a small percentage margin as against the eligibility criteria fixed. The petition sought by the litigants were to be allowed to apply for law admission despite not meeting the eligibility criteria.
The Division Bench comprising of Justices SC Dharmadikari and RI Changla held that
“The student must accept the Rule and there is no fundamental or vested right in a rounding off. A candidate who has failed or has not fulfilled the minimum prescribed standard or benchmark, cannot request a Writ Court to round off his percentage to the nearest so that he can fulfill the eligibility requirement or criteria. We do not think that writ jurisdiction is meant for serving such a purpose or to enable such students to introduce themselves in Law courses. The impression that is given to the public at large that for becoming a Lawyer you need not have to possess the basic academic qualification nor you are required to fulfill the basic standards and norms, should be dispelled forthwith.”
The petitioners/students in the present case had failed to obtain the minimum requisite percentage required in the pre-law degree course which was 45% as mandated by the government. Since the petitioner’s scores were very close to that of the mandated by the government, they sought reconsideration of their application. They contended that the ruled imposed were done midway and in a drastic way or post the commencement of the state-level exams for law courses.
The Government of Maharashtra announced and notified earlier this June prescribing for a minimum score for admission into the law courses. The Government herein contended that the relevant rules were mentioned well in advance.
The Court found no merits in the case of the petitioners stated that they would not get the admission merely because they have qualified the CET and that every student mandatorily must fulfill the eligibility criteria and observed that,
“In writ jurisdiction, we must and we ought to promote truth, honesty, and justice. If justice is not in favor of the candidates, then nothing can be done to help them.”