)
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
IN T}Itr IiiGI{ CCIJIIT OF JUDICATUR;I AT BOI\{RAY CRDINATI,Y OP.IGII{/'L
wll[T PII'I'ITI()N
CI\;Ii, .:L'Ii:ISDICTION oI? 20I7
NO.
irl the mntters cf:
/rrticlcs l.i, 19,?.1 ar,tl 226 o{ the Constitution of LrCi.-r;
A}'iD
The lr4ahrrastrtra Universities Acl. llt91 ./iN.[)
F-csclstion dated October 9, 2017 issircC ir),the Director
ol
fi:
Ceqtral Evaluation
Centre,
ilxiinr;rliticn Depirrtnient
...lr{itioner'
i/Ionasi I'il:t:sh an
'"'Ititsus 'I'!r: i,ix1,sr's;lv
lf }frrr:l':ri & Crl.
... lrspi;nticni:t
-\uuf rEf_rIlq,j DNTED'IIIIS ,,1D4\Y
oI i\IovD\48ER,20i7
VASFII AND V.,\SI{I r\Dr/OCATE IiOR TI-IE PETITIONER I].22, DIIANN..\ J MAIIAL, C] S]\{ ]\.,IN R(i,,\J' O:, LO ] J L]NIDI]R, COLr\R l\,iI-rvlBAI 40C 001.
A.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN I
IN THE HIGTi COURT OF'JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PDTITION NO.
oF 2017 In the mafters of:
.,\rticles 14,
2l
and 226
of
the
Ccnstitution oflndia;
AND
The Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994
ANI) Resolutior dated October
9,
201'7
issued by the Director of Examination
and Evahution, Central Evtluation Centre, Examination Deplrtment
Manasi
Bhushan,
Salvation Army
Hostel,
Sankali
at the
)
Young Vornen's
)
Street, Sheikh
)
residing
..
. Petitioner
Hafizuddin Marg, Byculla, Mumbai, ) 400008
t/ersus
1.
The University o{'
Murnbai, )
(Through the Registrar), \,{.G. Rood, )
032
)
2. The Vice Chancellor, flni.zersitl, of
)
400
)
Mumbai- 400
Mumhai, M.G. Road, lv{urnbai-
032
n
)
n
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
L of
3. The Controller University
of
Exarninations, )
Mumbai, Kalina, )
Santacruz @ast), Mumbai
-
400
098
..
. Respondents
)
TO,
THE HON'BLE TI{E CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER HON'BLE PUISNE JUDGES OF TTIE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE
PDTITIONER
ABOVENAMED.
o
MOST RESPECTFULLY S}Itr!VETFI:
'fA 5 HA a
n
1.
Parties:
1.1
The Petitioner is a stuCent of larv, pursuing the degree of B.L.S. L.L.B at the Govemment Law College, Mumbai and is in fifth year of the five years course
of
Law offered by Rcspondent No.1 ("Five Years Larv Coursc"). The Petitioner has,
till the eighth semester examination, successfully cleared all her previous examinations, and has consistently rnxintained
a high standard of
law
academic
performance,
1.2
Respondent as the
No.l
is a recognised university originally established in the year 1857
"University of Bombay", tiie i':lrrre being later cllanged vide notification by
the Govemment of Maharashtra dated Septernber 4, 1996.
t.3
Respondent No.
2 is the principal executive and rcademic officer of Respondent
No.1, appointcd r:nder the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 ("the Maharashtra
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
3 Universitics Act") and having the powers as more particularly specified therein. Respondent Nc.2 is responsible for the development Respondent
of academic programmes of
No.l and is empowered to oversee and monitor the administration of
the academic programmes and general administration of Respondent
No.l
and to
ensure its efficiency and good ordcr. The powers and duties ofRespondent No.2 are
more particularly specified in Section 14 of the Act.
1.4
Respondent No. 3 is also an officer ofRespondent
No.l duly appointed under the
Act and having the powers as mcre particularly specified therein. Respondent No.3
is the principal officer-in-cliargs of the conduct of examinations and tests of Respondent No.1 and declaration
oftheir results. This power includes the power to
arrange to get the performance ofcandidates at the examinations properly assessed
and process the results. The porvers and duties of Respondent No.3 are more particularly specified in Section l8 ofthe Act.
1.5
Respondent Nos.
I to 3 are all 'State' for the purpose of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India, 1950.
2.
Purrrose of Filine the Petition
The Petitioner has filed this Petiticn under
A(icle
226 of the Constitution
oflndia
in order to challenge and impugn the circular dated October 9, 2017 issued by Respondent No. 3 whereby it has inter alia arbitrarily directed that no supplements
will
be provided to any student appearing for any examination held under the aegis
of Respondenl No. 1 from the second semester of20l7 ontvards ("the impugned
Circular").
oTs F-
t 1048t Oa,o
OF
+
WWW.LIVELAW.IN tl 3.
Rrief Facts The following are the brieffacts giving risc the filing of this Petition:
3.1
.
In the year 2013, the Petitiorer securcd admission in the Govemment Law College,
Musrbai for the Five Year Lavr Course.
3.2.
Between the years 2013 and 20i7 ,1he
letitioner appeared for successive semester-
wise examinations in the Five Years L.au' Course, conducted by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The Petitioner has been a sincere and above average student, and has most
importantly, been consistent in her academic perforrnancc. This is evident from an ex
facie view of the results of the Petitioner in the past examinations. Hereto
annexed and markerl as Exhibits
A1
-
llxhibit A8 are
photocopies
of
the
Petitioner's mark sheets reflecting her consistently high performance.
3.3.
However,
it is also pertinent to note that in several
examinations for which the
Petitioner appcared, sire has made use ofthe entire answer bcoklets provided and
has also continucd her ansivers on sr:pplementary sheets provided during the e:
llxhibit B is a copy of the answer
booklet of the last semester examination indicating that the Petitioner had utilized supplementary sheets. The Petitioner seeks to refer to and/or reply upon copies
of
the answer sheet of students who appears in the same examination evincing utilization pfsupllernentary sheets by them.
In N{ay 2017, Respondent No.
--r.4.
Petitioner duly appeared
I
held the Semoster Eight exantination which the
for. Pertinentll,, the results of the said
examination r.vas untluly delayed and werc declared irr August Respondent
.q
AHAF !sHr RA} R6gd. No. t0,lEt
(
Erprry Oat.
)t
30-i0-2rlt
0
n
l,
2017 after
No. I was unable to adhere to the timelines se! by the Govemment of
Maharashtra. GREATER MUlilEAl
3
semester
It
is nolervorthy that Respondent
No. I had resorted to online marking
for correction of marksheets during this semester which had resulted in an
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
5 utter chaos in thc deciarstion of thc results. . Copies of the nervspaper articles evincing the same is hereto annexed and marited as Exhibits
3.5.
Cl -
C6.
On October 9, 2017, Respondent No. 3 issued the impugned Circular, ofrvhich the
following is relevant:
a.
the impugned Circular is addresses to all principals, heads of departments, directors etc. of all affiliated coll:ges, institutes and departments in various branches, including law;
b.
the impugned Circular directs the attention ofthe addressees to the fact that all examinations from the second semester of2017 conducted under the aegis
of Respondent No.
I will be evaluated by means of an online marking
system; and
c.
for the purpose of facilitating this online marking system, no supplements are to be provided to any student from any branch.
Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit D is a copy ofthe impugned Circular along v,,ith cn English translation
3.6.
cfthe
sarne.
The aforesaid decision as contained in the impugned Circular received inter alia the
following press coverage:
a. b.
article published the Times oflndia dated October 11,2017;
c.
articie puhlishcd by the Timcs of hdia Catcd November 3, 2017.
c-article published by Mumbailive.com dated October 16,2017; and
Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibits
E-l to II-3 are print-outs ofthe
aforesaid
articles. Pertinently, a pemsal of the articles reveal that the sarne are largely based on inputs from officials of Respondent No.
l, including
Respondent
Nos.2 and3.
The follorving statements are of particular relevance:
o
+
+
yT
WWW.LIVELAW.IN (
"No supplements
vill be given
students
irt
Universtty exant startin?,
week
of
It
to
not to
lhe l,'[trnfisi
thc
in
supplements is to put an end to the
the
firsl
No',tutber. Afler several
students complained
appears that the reasoning behind
inccnl'enience caused
cf nct getting
l marks fo, ailswct's wrillen
decision
in
provide
ensuring
thrrt the supplements arc corrected
in
along rvith ihc rnain paper.
supplements or being given single-digit
I{orvever, there is a recognition of
marks onlv - inrlicating tlru! only tlie ir
thc fact that in the exam held in
supplemenls have been assesscd -
April
o./,ticials believed ,viroDlemcnts can be
sf.rdents availed
eliminated .from
llte
examinotion
In the /pril-),{ait
exom,
egl
36,000 students opterl
far
proccss.
s
-
May 2017, over
36,000
the use
of
supplements.
uDDl eme * ls." (e'nphasis curs)
"In a fito-and-o-half-hour Ddper, students may
not hc able to
supplenents hn4
c rren! prdct;ce i:
of
Il
the decision is the purported waste
of
before,
ten
proviriing supplements of numerous
pages,
the
pages.
a-/i'eslt
'I'!.:crc
6r$t
stationery
on
account of
is an understanding llmong
of 40 pages as a
the officials of Respondent No. I
i.: nlso tt colossc! tutt.ste
that lnost sflldents do not \wite
answer booklet supplenent.
It appcars that yet anotlier reason for
the
four
to give
write
a
in
beyor'ld the 40 page.s available
answer booJcle!. Unlike
most
stcttione0',"
suirl a
tfficial."
uth,erslly
A
.L,
AA
n I
C.
bryond 40 pages, discounting the
WWW.LIVELAW.IN 1
remaining students rvho may well
\witc way over 40 pages. I
it
"Scanning supplernents coulcl prove lc
Oncc again
be a hindrance it tirc
succes:;10
convenience to the Respondents is
asscssment,
weighed on a greater footing than
implementotion ofonline said anotlier
appears that the
to
fully
exprcsl thenselves in
the
the n:ed for students
fficial."
cxamination for rvhich they have studicd.
"On an average, snderts 28
fill
Once again
about 27-
paget in a 40-poged ontrer houk.
it
appears that the
'average'student nppears to have
Many other puhlic univerrities also do
becn
not give supplenrerrts," he. [Respondcnl
disregrding
No. 2l adde d l at apress conference he!d
str*ents beyond the average that
on Novernber 2,
2C
l7|"
considered,
the
ccrnpletcly
multitude 0f
require supplemeuts for cornpleting
their examinations, not less than 36,000 at tire minimunr.
3.7.
On October 24, 2017, several studenfs, including tllc Petitioner addressed a letter to
Respondent
Nos.
encapsulated
I, 2 ::ixi 3, t-'rlling
in the
upon tlrern to reconsider the decision
impugned Circular,
in view of inter alia the follorving
4^
consitleral.icns: A
ar.-
*
WWW.LIVELAW.IN B
a.
a number
ofstudents have historically used far more than the fixed number
ofpages in the l;ooklet provided, by rvay ofseveral sheets ofsupplementary papers;
b.
students lrave varied handrvriting sizes and styles; students also differ in the method and/or style in which they write their papers, illustratively, some may
write in paragraph forn wlrile olher in bullet points;
c.
students should bc permitted to fully express themselves within the time pericd prescribed; having stL:died for the examination, students ought not to have ihe added pressure ofpr6cis writing their responses;
d.
Iaw is a subjeclive sub.;ect and a hard-working student may have much that he/she rvould want to p'.lt forth in order to be best assessed on their leaming;
e.
it is unfair that the limitations of the nevr online
assessments systems are
sought to be rectified by irnposing a restriction on the size
of
students'
answers; and
f.
to save unnecessary cost and wastage of paper, the size of the supplerrents may be decreased so that only that amount of paper is used as is necessary
for the student to complete the examination. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhihits fi is a copy ofthe letter dated October 24, 2011, along with the RPAD rcceipts confirming delivery to Respondent Nos. and 3. Florvever,
3.8
till
l,
2
date, no response has been forthcoming.
On November 14, 2017, an article r.vas published in the 'The
Eindt
newspaper
tillcd "MU students con nou' lake sttpplements " in which the following statements ofthe Minister of Statc for Eligher and Technical Education was quoted
/o
A AR
* I
tlo.
W
I
as
follows:
"Problems arose when teaclers gave separate bar codes for supplement sheets and main answer sheets. This led to confiuion and many students lost marks for their sttpplements. T'he ntcrks ended up being given to other sludents. I l:ave directed leacJprs to give th: same bar codes for main and supplement answer sheels. Students cannot be stopped front asking for supplement papers bqtond the 40 pages in lhe nain anstqer sheets."
WWW.LIVELAW.IN 1 Hereto annexed and r,rarked as Dxhibit G is
r
copy ofthe article dated November
14,2017 publisheC. in The Hindu.
3.9.
Despite the above, the Inrpugned Circular was not'vithdrarvn. Accordingly, the
Petitioner (along rvith other students) gauging that there has once again been a changc in the policy ndcpteC by I]-cspondent No.
I
md in order to obtain
rnore
clarity, addressed an email to the Respondents on November 17,201'7 inter alia:
a.
stating that they aie yct to receive any response to the Petitioner's letter dated
October 24, 2017 (Exhibit F herein);
b.
requesting the Responde:rts to clarify the position in view ofthe statement
of
the Minister of Stale for Higlrer and Technical Education in the said Article.
Hcreto annexed and marked as Exhibit 1'7
,2017
Il
is a cop;,of the email dated November
.
3.10. However, thc Petitioner has once
again not received any response to the aforesaid
email. Thus, the letitioncr apprehenCs that ifthe irnpugned Circular is not quashed, students
will
be denied additional paper on which to complete their examinations,
commencing next mcnth in violaticn and,/ or infraction of her fundamental right to education under Article
2l ofthe Constitution oflndia. In order to prevent
the same,
the Petitioner is invoking this Hon'blc Court's \tr/rit jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India; and is seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus and/or any other
writ and/or direction in thc neture of a mandamus tiirecting
ResponCent Ncs.2 and 3 to modify the impugned Circular such that while the online assessment system may
wcll be utilizcd, students
are not penalized by withholding
supplements ofpaper, on the follcrving grounds, each ofwhich are in the altemative and rvithout prejuCice to the other:
o
s
GREATER MUMBAI
IMAHARASHIRA) Regd. t{o. lfiE7 Exptry Date
30-tG20t8
OF
*
WWW.LIVELAW.IN lD
4.
Grounds
A.
The Impugned Circular is patcntly erroneous inasmuch as it seeks to reshict the lieedom of the shrtlgnls frcm appropri:rtely articulating and expressing themselves and their knowledgc and viervs on various subjects, by restraining them from taking
supplements during the exnminations scheduled thereby violating the freeclom guaranteed undcr
to be held in December
2017
r\rticlc 19(l)(a) ofthe Constitution
oflndia.
B
The Impugned Circular is arbiharv and unreasonable as it seeks to impinge on the rights of the Petitioner to exprcss thcir vicrvs in more than one supplement so as to
avoid alleged logistical irrconvenience to Respondent No. 1 while correcting the marksheets of the sfirdents including the Petitioner by flre cnline marking svstem devised by the ilcspondents for this purpose.
C
The Impugned Circular effectively restrains a student from articulating and
/
or
expressing their {ieetlom oflhought by restricting therrselves to 36 pages so as to compress their cnlire ansrvers such number ofpages.
D
The Impugned Circular is arbitraiy inasmuch as Respondents
to shift
it
has been issued by the
irttcniion fiom its ine{ficicncies and disorganization in
correcting marksheets ofstudents including the Petitioner, directly at the expense the besl interesl
E.
cf
of
its slurleirls
The Impugned Ciicu!ar fail-s to pro.r,i
fcr rvriting hfr exainination is requiretl i'cr the cnline matking system. The
Impugned Circular is consequeltly withoui any basis or lcgic and has been isqqed merely to funher intcrcsi
t-rf the: Respon
5
*
t ,^.c
WWW.LIVELAW.IN ll Ifone analysis the Irnpugned Circular, it rvould be clear that the
F
same is effectively
aimed reshicting the number of pages of conveying document on the basis that it
would be Cifficult for the Respontients to scan and upload the same. The entire premise on which the Impugned Circular is brsed is absurd in the extreme.
While Respondent No. 3 has sought to issue the Impugned Circular to avoid the
G
tutter mismanagement
in the corrcction of marksheets that occuned in the
last
semester examinations which caused gave harm, distress and prejudice to the students, it has oncc again failed to take the interest and rights of the students into
consideration and issued the Impugned Circular merely to suit its own interests.
The Impugled Circular fails to show that it in any manner serves any public interest,
H
whatsoever. On thc contrary, the Impugned Circular is against the interest and rights
ofthe students at large including the Petitioncr.
I
The Impugred Circular gives a complete go-by to the fact that the challenge to the online examination system is pcnding challenge before this Hon'ble Court. In the circumstances Respondent No. 3 ought not to have issued the Impugned Circular to proceed with the online examination system when it's very use and implementation
is presently
s r t b-j u d i c
e.
The Impugred Circular has been issued wilhout improving the present condition
J
of
the online examination system / Frocess which is prescntly in place. On the contrary,
!
i
A
bascless and unsubstantiated restrictions are being imposed on students so that the
t
work ofthe Respondents cen be reduced lvith scant regard to the months of hard work and preparation that they write tlreir examinations.
K.
The justifications provided by officials olRcspondent
No.
1,
including Respondent
No. 2 makes it clear lhat only thc 'average' stuCent has been considered, without in
WWW.LIVELAW.IN 11, any manner whatsoever considering tirosc studenls who foll outside
ofthe purported
'average'. No explanation whatsoever has been provided for the manner in which this assessment of'average' has bcen calculatcd.
The Respondents have entirely failed to consider that in the examination held in
L
May 2017, over 36,000 shrdents availcd ofsupplementary sheets ofpaper in support
of their answers. It is respectfull:r' subrnitted that this i.lone is evidence enough of the fact that the arbitrary restriction on the same would affect, at the minimum 36,000 students.
The right to write their examination paper rvithout restrictions on the paper provided
to them is an integral part of the rLight to Education under Article
2l of the
Constitution of IrrCia, whioh in tunr, is novr a recognized facet of the right to life under Article
(D
2l of the Constitution oflndia. In this respect, it may be noted
.r\rticle
2l
o[ the Constitntion cl India, rcad with (D Article
4l
that:
of
the
Directive Principles of State Policy; and (ii) Section 18(3) of the Maharashtra flr'.iversities Act, i 99ti, the Rcspondcnts are r:randated to carry out positive acts in order to protect and / or further the Petitioner's right to education;
(iD
it is now
a settled position of Larv that the State is not only duty bound to
protect and / or prevent a violation ofthe Petitioner's fundamental rights; but is also constitntionally mandated to do end carry out all positive acts which
.vill lead to the fructification ofthe Petitioner's fundamental rights, in this case being her
(iiD
right to sducation;
in the present case, if the impugned Circular is not amended at the earliest, the Petitioner rvould be compelled to face the added and arbitrary pressure
of
ensuing that she completes her examination without any further access to
o
+ n
A
paper, which in turn rnly compel her to leave her paper incomplete,
if
she
AR
n tlo
O.t.
I
dccs in fact run out of paper. The fact that the Petitioner, who is a hard-
WWW.LIVELAW.IN t3 working and diligent student has consistently used supplementary sheets of paper is evidcncc
ofthe urgency ofthe matter.
The above consequences under Article
N
2l ofthe
will in effect, nullify
the Petitioner's right to education
Constitution oflndia.
The Impugned Circular failed to consider that even though the answer sheets provided to the snidents consist of40 page, only 36 ofsuch pages could be utilized as the
remaining pages are mcant for official purposes and cannot by used by the
students.
o
The Impugned Circular is arbitrary inasmuch as on the one hand the students including the Petitioner are being compelled to not take supplements while answering the questions, on the other hand the marking ofthe answers is dependent
on the quality end the detail and depth of the answers to the questions. Thus, the Impugned Circular is akin to a double-edged sword on the students.
P
I:r r,iew
ofthe above in:pending situation, it is respectfully submitted that, in order
to ensure that the Petitioner's right to education is not nullified, the State i.e. in this case the Respondents must necessarily amend the impugned Circular, rcmoving the
restriction on students to access supplementary sheets of paper to complete their examination. This is the mandate ofPa* III ofthe Constitution oflndia, as has been interpreted by various judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that the ltesponderrts have the pou,er, authorit), and ability to do this is evident from
certain provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act itself.
o
In the aforesaid circumstances, it is respectfully submitted this is a fit case for the Respondents
A
to exercisc their power and discretion unCer Section l8(3) of
aharashtra Unil";rsities Act to amend the impugned Circular accordingly.
t
the
WWW.LIVELAW.IN lcl 5.
The Petitioner craves leave to add to, arnend, alter, modify and/or delete any or all
ofthe foregoing grounds, ifnecessary, c:i thc facts and circumstances ofthe present case,
6.
In the circumstances aforesaid, the Petitioner submits that this is a fit case for this Hon'ble Court to exercisc its porvers under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia and issue a vvrit of mandamus or a u,rit in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate rvrit, order or direction, ordering and declaring that Respondent 3's
arbitrary restricticn on the number of pages available to students, including the
Petitioncr
to wrile her examinrtion:r, is
Respondents
to
unconstitutional and directing the
exercise powers conferred upon
it
under the Maharashtra
Universities Act to amend lhe impugned Circular to the extent of eliminating this unfair and unnecessary restriction.
7.
The Petitioner submits that pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleaseC stay the operation ofthe impugned Circular to the extent ofthe direction restricting the number ofpages available to the student to write flre examination.
8.
The Petitioner submits that she is entitled to ad-interim and/or interim reliefs in the aforesaid terms.
A failure on the 1)art ofRespondent No.3 to fulfill its constitutional
and statutory tluties qua the Petitioner rvill atfect her preparation for the Ninth Semester examination,
rvill have an advcrsc cffect on her overall marks and ranking
and as rvell as on her ability to pursue further studies in a university
This
will
ofher choosing.
lead to a violction of the Petitioner's right to education under Article
2l
ofthe Constitution oflndia. Considering the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted
A
that the factors of printa facie case, irreparable harm and balance of convenience
'J I
all in favour of the Petitioner and against Respondent No.3. The same militates
tI
favour of grent of ad-interim and/or intcrim re!iefs irr the aforesaid terms
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
l( 9
The Petitioner nrbmits lhat this I{on'hle Court has the jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of lhc prer;ent Petition under .\fticle,s 2.26 of tlre Constitution of India.
This is because the Maharashtra Univcrsities Act does not any alternate remedy in the present facts and circumstanccs. In the circumstances,
it is a seftlcd position of
law, as hes becn held by various judicial pronouncements of this FIon'ble Court that the remedy of invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court is permissible.
l0
The Petitioner has not filed any other proceeding on the subject matter ofthe present
Petition before this Holl'ble Court or any othcr Iligh Court or in the Snpreme Court
oflndia. The present Petiticn therclore, is maintainable.
11.
No caveat has been filed by the Respondents or any ofthem and the Petitioner has not been served r','ith any caveat with respcct to the above mafl.er. The Petitioner undertakes to scrvc a ccpy ofthe Petition,
12.
if
so directed by this Hon'ble Court.
The Petitioner submits that the carrse ofaction for the present Petition arose on or about the October 9, 2Cl7 wh:n the impugned Circular was issued. The present
Petition is therefore, rnoved with utmost urgency and dispalch. There is therefore, no delay and/or laches in filirrg of thc present Petition.
13.
Th.e Petitioner has paid the
14.
The Petitioncr, who is convcrsant with tl:e facts and ciicumstances of the present
fixed court lees pavable on this Petition.
case, has signed, ',,erified and declared the present Petition.
15.
The Petitioner
will rely
o'r
on documents, a list whereofis annexed hereto.
B.
*
16.
The Petitioner tliercfore, prays:
OF
WWW.LIVELAW.IN lL
(a)
that this I'Icn'ble Court be pleased tc iss.re:r writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mand:rmus or iiri), other apgoprirte
(i)
rrit,
order or direction:
r;rdering and rlecla:ing lh:it the irnpr,lgncd Ciircular issued by Respondent
No.3 is unconstitutionrl rnd in breach of its statutory duties under the Mrharaslrtm U;iivlisilies Act
t.
the extent that it unnecessary eliminates
the rights of students to obtain naper on rvhich to continue writing their exarninations;
(ii)
or'dering anti
upon it under the Maharashtra Universities Act and take all steps and actiorrs recessary to forthrvith amend the irrpugned Circular removing lhc
unfair restriction imposeii on sttrdents by eliminating their right to obtain s'rpplernentary sileets of paper;
(b)
pending tl:c l:earing and final Cisposal be plcased to stay the operaliou
cftlie present Petiticn, this Hon'ble Court
ofthc irnpu4ned Circular in so far the provision
of supp!ementary sheels ofpaper is ccnccrned;
(c)
pendirrg the heering nnd finat disposal ofthe present Petition, this Flon'ble Court be pleased to dirccf
t:ir
R.?spondcnt3 to pr:blish a iiesh circular,
if
any, stating
that students vrill l:e allcwe(! lo use supplenrcntary anslver shcets during the examination schcduleC to be hekl i;'i I-rlcer:her, 301'i;
(d)
for a;l-irtelini reiiels in tcrn'r ofprayer ciaLrsc (a) and (c) above; s
(e)
ior cosls;
ar:rl
OTEAIER
* OF
WWW.LIVELAW.IN t7
(0
for such flirther and other rclicfs ns this Flon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances oflhe prcsent case.
Dated this 26'r' day of Noverrber 2017
Petitiol
drar.,.n
by us
Vashi a:rd Vashi Manasi Bhushan
lPetitionerl
],^kti*[siitinn., !'IiRIFICATICN
I, l\Ianasi Bhushan, of l\{urnbai InCian Inhabitant, the Petitioner
abovenamed
rcsiding at Salvation Army Young Women's Hostel, Sonkali Sheet, Sheikh Hafizuddin
Marg, Byculla, Mumbai, 400008, do hereby solemnly Ceclare that what is stated in
paragraphs
to
is tnre to my knowledge and that what is stated in
paragraphs to
is stated on information anr! belief, and I helieve the same to be true.
Solemnlv declared at Mumbai
)
this;/ffiof
)
lo
November. 20 I 7
Before
BFFO
ME
Vashi and Vashi
R. k.
ARMA ) LL,B
qOVOCATE
couRT8
NOTARY GOW. OF IIIDIA FLAT No. e ,C, MNO. BLOG. l'lo. 2.
h#'f,".*e,,etitioner
runee sal couptex cxs..oerootx rralA coMpou E, opp s.r'eus oEpot saYilr RoAo. lruMBAt - 400 02,
2 r.i
o
I Nov 2017
&
GrsT!.-llcD.
Date:.......1.
or2
l l
-l 30.1
o
OF
