Bombay HC directs vice-chancellor to decide on law student’s admission woes

The non-creamy layer refers to candidates from Other Backward Classes (OBC) with a yearly family income of less than R8 lakh per annum. Representation pic

In a major setback for a law student, the Bombay High Court directed the vice-chancellor to make a decision regarding the student's admission. Allegedly, the student was denied admission to the LLM programme under the pretext of not submitting a state-level non-creamy layer (NCL) certificate.

Bhushan Walunj, who secured the ninth position in Mumbai University's LLB program's merit list, was excluded from the LLM admission process. Walunj claimed to have submitted a NCL certificate from the Central government, but his admission was rejected due to not possessing a state-level NCL certificate.

Walunj not only secured the ninth position in Mumbai University's LLB exam merit list, but he also scored 82 out of 100 in his LLM CET exam. He alleged that he submitted both state and Central non-creamy layer certificates, along with a caste certificate proving his eligibility for reservation. However, due to a mistake by a clerk at the university's admission section, who overlooked the state certificate, he was disqualified from the process.

The non-creamy layer refers to candidates from Other Backward Classes (OBC) with a yearly family income of less than Rs 8 lakh per annum. Walunj alleged that the clerk at the admission section assumed he had only submitted a caste certificate and not a non-creamy layer certificate, leading to the rejection of his application.

Disheartened by this, Walunj approached the administration to rectify the error and requested them to consider his case. He emphasised that all his documents were in order, and his academic credentials were strong. "But despite multiple requests, my admission was rejected, prompting me to take legal action," Walunj told mid-day.

As of now, all three rounds for admission to the LLM course at Mumbai University have concluded, including the final round. The counsel for the university submitted that the petitioner did not upload the correct certificates before the stipulated date. They argued against granting special treatment, citing several students facing similar issues with document submission or non-submission. The university's counsel clarified that admissions are closed, making it impossible to accommodate the petitioner.

The high court order dated October 18 stated, "Considering the petitioner's rank in the merit list and possession of all necessary documents now, although the admission to the LLM course has closed and the courses are yet to begin, vacancies might occur, as sometimes happens. Therefore, we believe the matter should be presented before the vice-chancellor for a considered decision. The vice-chancellor has the authority to assess the situation, whether to favour the petitioner or not, prioritising the university's best interests, academic standards, and the petitioner's career."

Expressing dissatisfaction, Walunj said, "I am disheartened by the court's decision. It is disappointing and demoralising that administrative negligence by universities and colleges affects students in our society." He added, "I visited the VC's office on Friday; they informed me that they have forwarded the order to the university's legal cell. How much more delay?" When contacted for comment, an MU official stated, "The court's order has been sent to the university's legal team; we will look into it."