YASHSWI ABHAY LODHAversusDWARKADAS J SANGHVI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ORS

                                                                                      WP-12515-26.doc


              Sharayu Khot.

                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                        WRIT PETITION NO. 12515 OF 2026


                     Ms. Yashswi Abhay Lodha                            …Petitioner

                              Versus

                     Dwarkadas J. Sanghvi College of
                     Engineering & Ors.                                 …Respondents

                                                         ----------
                     Mr. Abhijeet A. Desai, Ms. Mohini A. Desai (Rehpade), Mr.Vijay P.
                     Singh, Ms. Daksha P., Mr. Deepesh Ramrakhiani, Mr. Manan Daga,
                     Mr. G. Shaik i/b M/s. Desai Legal LLP for the Petitioner.
                     Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Counsel, Ms. Manorama Mohanty and Ms.
                     Malika Mondal i/b M/s. S.K. Srivastav & Co. for the Respondent
                     No.1.
                     Mr. Sameer Khedekar, for the Respondent No. 2.
                     Mr. Aniruddha A. Garge, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for the Respondent No.3.
                                                         ----------

                                                    CORAM. : R.I. CHAGLA J
                                                             FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J

                                          Reserved on         : 23 September 2026
                                          Pronounced on : 06 October 2026


SHARAYU
PANDURANG
                     ORDER :(Per R.I. Chagla, J.)
KHOT




Digitally signed
by SHARAYU
PANDURANG
KHOT
Date:
2026.10.06
17:00:38
+0530
                     1.            By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking quashing

                     and setting aside of the impugned communication dated 11th



                                                           1/22
                                                           WP-12515-26.doc


September 2026 issued by Respondent No. 2 and the impugned

communications dated 12th September 2026 and 13th September

2026 issued by Respondent No. 1, whereby the Petitioner’s admission

has been declared cancelled with immediate effect.



2.          Further, direction is sought against the Respondents to

restore and continue the Petitioner’s admission to the Direct Second

Year Engineering Course, Computer Science and Engineering (Data

Science), for the Academic Year 2026-27 under the Gujarati

Linguistic Minority Category at Respondent No. 1.



3.          The Petitioner on the strength of her academic record,

having passed S.S.C. (standard X) examination from Nirmala

Convent High School, Nashik, in her very first attempt in March 2023

and thereafter, successful completion of Diploma in Computer

Technology from K.K. Wagh Polytechnic, Nashik with distinction,

securing 92.82% marks, applied for admission to Direct Second Year

Engineering (referred to as       “DSE”), Computer Science and

Engineering (Data Science) for the Academic Year 2026-27 at

Respondent No. 1-College under CAP Application No. DSE 26105610,

claiming the benefit of the Gujarati Linguistic Minority Category. The

                                2/22
                                                           WP-12515-26.doc


Respondent No. 1-College is an Institution holding Gujarati Linguistic

Minority status.



4.          The Petitioner claims to belong to the Gujarati Linguistic

Community and that her mother tongue is Gujarati. She was granted

provisional admission against Gujarati Linguistic Minority seat and

reported to the Respondent No. 1-College on 5th August 2026 and

paid fees of Rs. 30,929/- on 6th August 2026.



5.          The Petitioner states that the Diploma Leaving Certificate

issued by K.K. Wagh Polytechnic, Nashik, being the Certificate of

Institution immediately preceding her admission to DSE and issued

after her 10th Standard Leaving Certificate, contained no entry

whatsoever as to her mother tongue. Clause 4 of Government

Resolution dated 1st July 2013 issued by the Minority Development

Department, Government of Maharashtra specifically provides for the

contingency where the Leaving Certificate does not record the

student's religion or mother tongue and in such an event, a

Certificate issued by a registered organization of the concerned

Minority Community or by its religious/Community head, together

with an Affidavit of the student's parents as to religion or mother

                                3/22
                                                           WP-12515-26.doc


tongue is to be submitted and accepted as sufficient proof and

admission granted on that basis.



6.          The Petitioner claims to have been in possession of, and

did furnish, documents of the precise character contemplated by

Clause 4. These included a Certificate dated 21st July 2026 issued by

Shri Chintamani Parshwanath Jain Shwetamber Mandir & M.P.

Sangh, Nashik ("the Trust"), which is a religious/Community body of

the Gujarati (Jain) Community, in existence for almost 50 years and

which certifies that the Petitioner belongs to the Gujarati (Jain)

Community and that her religion is Jain, as well as her mother

tongue is Gujarati. In addition, the Petitioner furnished "Proforma-O"

for Minority quota seats, a notarized Affidavit/Declaration as to her

mother tongue.



7.          The Respondent No. 1 by a letter dated 3rd September

2026 addressed to the President/Authorized Representative of the

Trust requested documentary evidence in support of the certification

of the Petitioner's mother tongue and Community status and called

for the same by 5th September 2026. In response, the Trust informed

the Petitioner that no formal Vastipatrak ("Community register") had

                                   4/22
                                                            WP-12515-26.doc


been compiled by it and it was accordingly, unable to furnish the

same, without in any manner resiling from the Certificate dated 21st

July 2026 already issued by it.



8.          The Petitioner addressed her first written complaint to

Respondent No. 2 on 3rd September 2026 stating that she had

submitted the Gujarati Samaj/Trust Certificate, Trust Registration

Certificate, Proforma-O, notarized Affidavit/Declaration, Kankotri,

Diploma Leaving Certificate and Domicile Certificate in support of

her candidature and inspite of which, there had been continuous

harassment at the Respondent No. 1 - College in connection with her

admission and document verification over the preceding three weeks.



9.          The Respondent No. 1 - College on the same day, i.e. 3rd

September 2026, addressed a detailed reply to Respondent No. 2 -

State CET Cell disputing the Petitioner’s representation and

questioning the authenticity of the Trust Certificate on the ground

that it did not accord with the entry in the Petitioner’s 10th Standard

Leaving Certificate.



10.         The Respondent No. 1 on 6th September 2026,

                                  5/22
                                                            WP-12515-26.doc


addressed a further letter to the Petitioner, calling upon her to submit

inter alia a "Vasti Patra (Community Directory)”, her father's /

brother's / unmarried sister's marksheet showing Gujarati as a subject

studied, and an attested photocopy of her 10th Standard Leaving

Certificate by 7th September 2026, 5:00 p.m., failing which her

admission would be treated as cancelled.



11.          The Petitioner addressed further written complaints on

5th September 2026 and 6th September 2026 to Respondent No. 2 -

State CET Cell, reiterating that she had complied with the applicable

Government provisions and requested urgent intervention against the

College's continuing demands and the threatened cancellation of her

admission.



12.          Respondent No. 2 by email dated 6th September 2026

informed the Petitioner that a hearing on her complaint had been

scheduled for 7th September 2026 between 11:30 a.m. and 12:30

p.m.. Thereafter, the scheduled hearing did take place.



13.          By a letter dated 10th September 2026, Respondent No.1

addressed the Principal, Nirmala Convent High School, Nashik,

                                 6/22
                                                             WP-12515-26.doc


recording that the Petitioner's Diploma Leaving Certificate did not

mention her mother tongue and requested a duly attested photocopy

of her 10th Standard Leaving Certificate for verification.



14.         The Nirmala Convent High School, by their response

dated 11th September 2026, confirmed that the Petitioner was a

bona fide student of the said Institution and that, as per its records,

her mother tongue was recorded as "Marwadi".



15.         By emails dated 10th September 2026, Respondent No. 2

informed the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 - College that a second

hearing on the Petitioner's complaint (Hearing No. 02) was scheduled

for 11th September 2026 at 10:30 a.m. through a Google Meet video

link.



16.         The Respondent No. 2 - State CET Cell, on 11th

September 2026, at 10:28 a.m., viz. two minutes prior to the very

time at which Hearing No. 02 stood scheduled to commence, issued a

communication to Respondent No. 1 - College directing that the

Petitioner's admission be cancelled, in view of the 10th Standard

School Leaving Certificate issued by Nirmala Convent High School,

                                 7/22
                                                               WP-12515-26.doc


Nashik, records the Petitioner's mother tongue as "Marwadi" and her

religion as "Jain". Accordingly, it was stated that the Petitioner had

not fulfilled the eligibility criteria for the Gujarati linguistic Minority

Category.



17.          By the subsequent impugned communications dated

12th September 2026 and 13th September 2026 issued by

Respondent No. 1 - College, the Petitioner's admission has been

declared as cancelled with immediate effect.



18.          The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned

communications, has filed the present Petition.



19.          Mr. Abhijeet Desai, the learned Counsel appearing for the

Petitioner, has submitted that the impugned               communication

addressed by Respondent No. 2 - State CET Cell, to Respondent No. 1

- College is in breach of the principles of natural justice, in that the

communication had been addressed on 11th September 2026 and

issued at 10:28 a.m., two minutes before Hearing No. 02 stood

scheduled to commence at 10:30 a.m. on the same day. He has

submitted that notwithstanding the fact that the hearing was to

                                   8/22
                                                            WP-12515-26.doc


commence, the impugned communication recorded that the

committee had heard the submissions of both sides in detail and a

decision had been taken. He submitted that the Petitioner's own

statement had been submitted on 12th September 2026 and thus by

the impugned communication, the hearing was rendered illusory.



20.             Mr. Desai further submitted that there is a material

difference between purportedly hearing a person and affording that

person a meaningful and effective opportunity to be heard before an

adverse decision is taken on the material presently available.



21.             Mr. Desai has submitted that it has been laid down by

the Supreme Court in State Bank of India and Others Vs. Ranjit

Kumar Chakraborty and another1, that it is a well settled principle

that whenever a Rule is silent, the principles of natural justice shall

be read in it. A hearing should be given to a person who is being

punished with a major penalty. A notice ought to have been issued to

the delinquent by the Authority to whom papers were sent to show

cause why the major penalty should not be imposed on him. It is true

that the competent authority could pass the order of major penalty,

1     (2018) 12 SCC 807

                                  9/22
                                                               WP-12515-26.doc


but not without hearing the incumbent.



22.             Mr. Desai has also placed reliance upon the judgment of

the Supreme Court in G. Vallikumari Vs. Andhra Education Society

and Others2, wherein it is held that order of punishment passed by

Chairman of the Managing Committee by which the Appellant was

removed from service is vitiated due to violation of statutory rules

and the principles of natural justice. Although, in the order, the

Chairman of the Managing Committee had referred to allegations

levelled against the Appellant and representation submitted by her in

the light of findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, but without even

adverting to the contents of her representation and giving a

semblance of indication of application of mind, he had directed

removal of the Appellant from service. It has been further held by the

Supreme Court that requirement of recording reasons by every quasi-

judicial or even an administrative authority entrusted with the task of

passing       an    order   adversely      affecting   an   individual and

communication thereof to the affected person is one of the

recognized facets of the rules of natural justice and violation thereof

has the effect of vitiating the order passed by the authority

2     (2010) 2 SCC 497

                                   10/22
                                                              WP-12515-26.doc


concerned.



23.             Mr. Desai has also referred to the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Sub-Inspector Rooplal and Another Vs. Lt.

Governor Through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Others 3, wherein at

paragraph 24, the Supreme Court has held that after laying down

appropriate rules governing the service conditions of its employees, a

State should only play the role of an impartial employer in the inter

se disputes between its employees. If any such dispute arises, the

State should apply the rules laid down by it fairly. Still, if the matter

is dragged to a judicial forum, the State should confine its role to that

of an amicus curiae by assisting the judicial forum to arrive at a

correct decision. Once a decision is rendered by a judicial forum,

thereafter, the State should not further involve itself in litigation. The

matter thereafter should be left to the parties concerned to agitate

further, if they so desire.



24.             Mr. Desai has submitted that in the present case,

the Petitioner had submitted all requisite documents which showed

her having Gujarati Linguistic Minority and thus, eligible for the

3     (2000) 1 SCC 644

                                  11/22
                                                                        WP-12515-26.doc


benefit of such Minority Category for the admission in the

Respondent No. 1 – College. He has submitted that in view of the

Diploma Leaving Certificate issued by K.K. Wagh Polytechnic, Nashik,

being     the    Certificate of   Institution     issued    to   the     Petitioner

immediately preceding her admission to DSE, containing no entry

whatsoever as to her mother tongue, the documents submitted by the

Petitioner are in conformity with Clause 4 of the Government

Resolution dated 1st July 2013 issued by the Minority Development

Department, Government of Maharashtra.



25.             Mr. Desai submits that the Petitioner had furnished the

documents as per the requisites of Respondent No. 1- College in the

document retention letter (2026-2027) and of the Respondent No. 2 -

State CET Cell in their Brochure published. These included the

Certificate dated 21st July 2026 issued by the Trust, certifying that

the     Petitioner   belongs      to   the     Gujarati    Linguistic      Minority

Community and that her mother tongue is Gujarati. Further, the

Proforma-O for Minority quota seats was also furnished by the

Petitioner. This contained a notarized Affidavit cum Declaration as to

her mother tongue being Gujarati. He has accordingly submitted

that the Petitioner is eligible for admission in the Respondent No. 1 -

                                       12/22
                                                           WP-12515-26.doc


College being a Gujarati Linguistic Minority and eligible for the

Gujarati Linguistic Minority seat.



26.         Mr. Desai has submitted that the School Leaving

Certificate on which the Respondent No. 2 - State CET Cell has relied

upon for cancellation of her admission was not available with the

Petitioner when the documents were submitted for verification to the

Respondent No. 1 – College. He has submitted that in the Brochure

issued by the Respondent No. 2 - State CET Cell, there is an option

given for submission of Leaving Certificate. He has submitted that the

Petitioner has submitted the relevant documents which is as per the

requisite of the Respondent No. 2 - State CET Cell and accordingly,

her admission could not be cancelled.



27.         Mr. Desai has submitted that the document which was

relevant to be considered by the Respondent No. 2 - State CET Cell

and Respondent No. 1 - College is the Diploma Leaving Certificate

issued by K.K. Wagh Polytechnic, Nashik, which immediately

preceded the Petitioner's admission to B.Sc. and in view of it not

containing any entry as to the mother tongue of the Petitioner, the

other documents which had been submitted by the Petitioner were

                                 13/22
                                                           WP-12515-26.doc


required to be considered and the admission of the Petitioner

confirmed.



28.          Mr. Desai has submitted that the Respondent No. 2 -

State CET Cell has in the Affidavit in reply referred to a decision

having been taken and for which document at Exhibit R2-A has been

relied upon. He has submitted that from the face of that document, it

shows that the date of the decision/order is 7th September 2026,

though reference therein is made to subsequent dates. He has

accordingly submitted that the said decision is fabricated and drawn

up for these proceedings and accordingly, this Court ought not to

place any reliance upon it.



29.          Mr. Desai has accordingly submitted that the Petitioner's

admission has been cancelled in violation of the principles of natural

justice as well as by not considering that the Petitioner had met with

the requirements of the Respondent No. 2 - State CET Cell and

Respondent No. 1 - College in submission of relevant documents

certifying that the Petitioner belongs to Gujarati Linguistic Minority

and thus, entitled to the benefit of Gujarati Linguistic Minority seat

for which provisional admission had been granted to the Petitioner

                                14/22
                                                           WP-12515-26.doc


and the fees paid. He has accordingly sought for the prayers in the

Petition to be granted.



30.         Mr. Girish Godbole, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for Respondent No. 1 - College and Mr. Sameer Khedekar, learned

Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 - State CET Cell, have

vehemently opposed the Petition. They have submitted that the

Government Resolution dated 1st July 2013 issued by the Minority

Development Department, Government of Maharashtra provided in

Clause 3 that the School Leaving Certificate is the primary document

to be considered at the time of admission of the candidate to the

Linguistic Minority Educational Institution. Further, in the event the

School Leaving Certificate recorded the candidate's Linguistic

Minority status, then the subsequent Clause 4 of the Government

Resolution would not be applicable.



31.         Mr. Godbole has submitted that in the present case, the

School Leaving Certificate issued by the Nirmala Convent High

School, Nashik had recorded the Petitioner's mother tongue as

"Marwadi" and in view of which, the Petitioner was not eligible to be

granted admission against Gujarati Linguistic Minority seat in the

                                15/22
                                                         WP-12515-26.doc


Respondent No. 1 - College. He has submitted that although the

Petitioner has contended that the impugned communication dated

11th September 2026 issued by the Respondent No. 2 - State CET

Cell directing Respondent No. 1 – College to cancel the admission of

the Petitioner by placing reliance upon the said School Leaving

Certificate showing the Petitioner's mother tongue as "Marwadi" had

been issued two minutes prior to Hearing No.2 commencing before

the Committee, considering that the existence of the said School

Leaving Certificate has been admitted, a remand of the matter back

for consideration before the Committee would be an empty formality.

He has in this context placed reliance upon the judgments of the

Supreme Court, viz. (i) Viveka Nand Sethi Vs. Chairman, J&K Bank

Ltd. and Others4, at paragraph 22; (ii) State of Uttar Pradesh Vs.

Sudhir Kumar Singh and Others5, at paragraphs 41 and 42.



32.           Mr. Godbole has also referred to the judgments of the

Supreme Court in Board of Mining Examination Vs. Ramjee 6 at

paragraph 13 and Canara Bank Vs. Shri Debasis Das 7, at paragraphs


4   (2005) 5 SCC 337
5   (2021) 19 SCC 706
6   AIR 1977 SC 965
7   AIR 2003 SC 2041

                                16/22
                                                             WP-12515-26.doc


12-15, which are in the context of natural justice. It has been held in

the Ramjee (supra) at paragraph 13 that "Natural justice is no unruly

horse, no lurking land mine, nor a judicial cure-all. If fairness is

shown by the decision-maker to the man proceeded against, the

form, features and the fundamentals of such essential processual

propriety being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each

situation, no breach of natural justice can be complained of.

Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without reference to the

administrative realities and other factors of a given case, can be

exasperating."



33.         Mr.   Godbole    has   submitted    that   the    impugned

communications which have rejected the Petitioner's admission have

been passed in accordance with law and particularly having due

regard to the Government Resolution dated 1st July 2013.



34.         Mr. Khedekar has in addition placed reliance upon the

Affidavit in reply of Respondent No. 2 - State CET Cell, wherein it is

stated that the authenticated school record obtained from Nirmala

Convent High School, Nashik conclusively answered the sole disputed

question, namely, the Petitioner's mother tongue as recorded in her

                                17/22
                                                            WP-12515-26.doc


own educational history. Accordingly, the decision has been taken by

Respondent No. 2 - State CET Cell, which is annexed at Exhibit R2-A

of the said Affidavit in reply. This was pursuant to a hearing held on

7th September 2026 and the reference to the date 7th September

2026 on the first page of the decision at Exhibit R2-A cannot be

contended as sought to be contended by Mr. Desai as a decision

passed on 7th September 2026, but only records the Minutes of the

Meeting on that date and the decision follows thereafter.



35.         Mr. Godbole and Mr. Khedekar have sought for dismissal

of the Petition on the ground that the Petitioner inspite of having in

her possession the School Leaving Certificate issued by the Nirmala

Convent High School, Nashik, has not disclosed the same to the

Respondent No. 2 - State CET Cell and Respondent No. 1 - College

during the verification of the documents for grant of admission to the

Respondent No. 1 - College. They have submitted that the impugned

communications have been issued upon obtaining the 10th Standard

Leaving Certificate issued by Nirmala Convent High School, Nashik

and which clearly establishes that the Petitioner cannot be considered

as having Gujarati Linguistic Minority as her mother tongue is

recorded as "Marwadi". They have accordingly sought for dismissal of

                                18/22
                                                            WP-12515-26.doc


the Petition on this ground.



36.         Having considered these submissions, we find much

merit in the submissions on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 - College

and Respondent No. 2 - State CET Cell. The Government Resolution

dated 1st July 2013 issued by the Minority Development Department,

Government of Maharashtra, in particular Clause 3 thereof, provides

that Linguistic Minority Educational Institutions, whilst granting

admission, shall consider the entry as to the mother tongue

appearing in the School Leaving Certificate as authoritative. It is only

when the School Leaving Certificate does not record either the

religion or mother tongue that Clause 4 will apply and under which

there is provision for continuance of submission of documents to

establish the religion or mother tongue of the candidate who has

applied for admission.



37.         In the present case, Clause 4 of Government Resolution

dated 1st July 2013 was inapplicable as under Clause 3, the 10th

Standard Leaving Certificate itself recorded the Petitioner's mother

tongue as "Marwadi". In view thereof, the Petitioner ought to have

submitted the 10th Standard Leaving Certificate and by not having

                                 19/22
                                                           WP-12515-26.doc


submitted the same, there is a clear suppression on her part in

obtaining provisional admission against Gujarati Linguistic Minority

seat in Respondent No. 1 – College. Further, Respondent No. 1 -

College, being an Institution holding Gujarati Linguistic Minority

status, could not have granted admission to the Petitioner, in view of

the fact that the Petitioner's mother tongue was recorded as

"Marwadi" in the 10th Standard Leaving Certificate. The Petitioner

could not have relied upon the fact that her Diploma Leaving

Certificate issued by K.K. Wagh Polytechnic, Nashik, had not recorded

the entry as to the Petitioner’s mother tongue, so as to make Clause 4

of the Government Resolution dated 1st July 2013 applicable.



38.         The reliance placed by the Petitioner on the additional

documents of Gujarati Minority listed in the Documents Retention

Letter (2026-27) is misplaced. This in view of the Government

Resolution dated 1st July 2013 expressly providing in Clause 3 that

the Linguistic Minority Institutions shall, when granting admission,

treat the entry as to religion or mother tongue appearing in the

School Leaving Certificate as authoritative. This would also apply to

the Brochure issued by the Respondent No. 2 – State CET Cell which

though providing an option to submit the Leaving Certificate

                                20/22
                                                            WP-12515-26.doc


pertaining to religion / mother tongue, this being the primary

document, it ought to have been produced.



39.         The contention on behalf of Petitioner that the impugned

communication dated 11th September 2026 has been issued two

minutes prior to the commencement of Hearing on No. 2 and thus, in

violation of principles of natural justice, and for which it requires to

be set aside and the matter remanded back to the Committee, is

misconceived. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the decisions

relied upon by the Petitioner, including in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs.

Sudhir Kumar Singh (supra), that where the facts are stated to be

admitted or indisputable, then only one conclusion is possible and

that the Court does not pass futile orders of setting aside or remand

when there is, in fact, no prejudice caused.



40.         Although, in the present case, there is undoubtedly

procedural irregularity in that the impugned communication dated

11th September 2026 had been issued two minutes prior to Hearing

No. 2 being conducted by the Committee, the existence of the 10th

Standard School Leaving Certificate having been admitted, it would

be futile to order setting aside of the impugned communication dated

                                 21/22
                                                            WP-12515-26.doc


11th September 2026 and remanding the matter back to the

Committee. The Respondent No. 2 - State CET Cell was undoubtedly

convinced of the fact that the Petitioner's admission was required to

be cancelled, in view of the 10th Standard School Leaving Certificate

expressly recording the Petitioner's mother tongue as "Marwadi".



41.         We find no infirmity in the impugned communication

issued by Respondent No. 2 - State CET Cell and/or the subsequent

impugned communications dated 12th September 2026 and 13th

September 2026 issued by Respondent No. 1 – College and/or their

acting upon the 10th Standard School Leaving Certificate issued by

Nirmala Convent High School, Nashik. These acts in cancelling the

Petitioner's admission to the Respondent No. 1 – College are in

conformity with the Government Resolution dated 1st July 2013.



42.         We find no merit in the present Petition, which is

accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.




      [FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.]                 [R.I. CHAGLA J.]




                                 22/22