JANHAVI VINOD SHEGONKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. THE PRINCIPAL SEC DEPT OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION TRAINING AND ORS

                                                                              RJ-WP 7978.2026.doc

                   Kavita S.J.


                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                           WRIT PETITION NO.7978 OF 2026

                   Janhavi Vinod Shegonkar                           …Petitioner

                                 Versus

                   State of Maharashtra & Ors.,                      …Respondents
                                                        ----------
                   Mr. Sariputta Sarnath for Petitioner.
                   Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl. G.P. a/w V.G. Badgujar, AGP for Respondent Nos.
                   1 to 3 – State.
                   Mr. Krishnakant Dhere for Respondent No.4.
                                                    ----------

                                                  CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND
                                                          FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.

                                            RESERVED ON : 24th AUGUST, 2026.

                                          PRONOUNCED ON : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2026.


                   JUDGMENT: (Per R.I. Chagla, J.)


                   1.                By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking a direction

                   to Respondent No. 2 to issue hall tickets, conduct demo examination,

                   practical and final examinations to be held on 1st and 2nd July 2026

                   for the Certificate Course in Health Sanitary Inspector of the
KAVITA
SUSHIL
JADHAV             Petitioner and other similarly placed students. Further consequential
Digitally signed
by KAVITA
SUSHIL JADHAV
Date: 2026.09.08
14:45:22 +0530     relief has also been sought.

                                                          1/17
                                                     RJ-WP 7978.2026.doc

2.          The Petitioner has amended the Petition pursuant to the

Order dated 12th August, 2026 by joining Applicants as party

Respondents. The Applicants are similarly placed as the Petitioner

who has filed the petition.


3.          The newly joined party Respondents have supported the

Petition.


4.          The facts briefly stated are as under:


            (i)    The Petitioner claims to have secured admission

            to the Certificate Course in Health Sanitary Inspector

            for the Academic Year 2025-2026. This is based on the

            premise that Respondent No. 4 – Institute has

            uploaded information of 161 students, which included

            the Petitioner, on the Web Portal along with their fees,

            and it is averred in the Petition that the admission was

            accepted by Respondent No. 2 and at no point of time

            objected to until the Respondent No. 4 - Institute

            sought additional intake for the aforesaid Certificate

            Course.




                                 2/17
                                         RJ-WP 7978.2026.doc

(ii)    The Respondent No. 2 issued a Letter dated

13th September 2024 directing Respondent No. 3 to

stop accepting any Applications for new institutions,

courses, or additional intake of students.


(iii)   The Respondent No. 4 - Institute, in which

Institute the Petitioner claims to have secured

admission, had, on various dates, viz. 10th July 2025,

27th October 2025, 10th November 2025, and 14th

November 2025, sought permission from Respondent

No. 3, for additional intake to the said Certificate

Course in Health Sanitary Inspector.


(iv)    The Respondent No. 3, vide Letter dated 18th

July 2025, sought clarification from Respondent No. 2

with regard to increase of intake to the said Certificate

Course in view of the Application of the Respondent

No. 4 – Institute.


(v)     The Respondent No. 3, vide Letter dated 4th

December 2025, informed the Respondent No. 4 –

Institute that request for additional intake has been

rejected.

                     3/17
                                         RJ-WP 7978.2026.doc

(vi)   The Respondent No. 3, vide Letter dated 17th

December 2025, intimated the Respondent No. 4 -

Institute that the Institute shall attract penalty under

the    Maharashtra    Unauthorized     Institutions   and

Unauthorized Courses of Study in Agriculture, Animal

and    Fishery   Sciences,    Health   Sciences,   Higher

Technical and Vocational Education (Prohibition) Act,

2013, (for short “the Act”), for admitting excess

students than the intake capacity.


(vii) The Respondent No. 3, vide letter dated 8th

April 2026, once again informed the Respondent No. 4

- Institute that their Application for additional intake

capacity has been rejected.


(viii) The students, including the Petitioner of the said

Certificate Course, vide Letter dated 17th June 2026,

wrote to the Respondent No. 3 requesting them to

appear for the aforesaid examinations in the said

Certificate Course.


(ix)   The present Petition has been filed in view of

the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 not granting permission

                      4/17
                                         RJ-WP 7978.2026.doc

to the Petitioner for appearing in the aforesaid

examination for the said Certificate Course.


(x)    Subsequent to the filing of the Petition, it was

informed to this Court on 25th June, 2026 that the

Petitioner had    filed an Application before the

Competent Authority in terms of the prayer made in

the Petition and a hearing had been held by the

Competent Authority on 19th June 2026. Thereafter,

on the same date viz. 25th June 2026, an order was

passed on the Application, which order has been

placed before this Court and taken on record.


(xi)   The Respondent - State has filed their Affidavit-

in-Reply to the Petition on 29th June 2026.


(xii) The Respondent No. 4 - Institute has also filed

their Affidavit-in-Reply as well as Additional Affidavit-

in-Reply on 2nd July 2026 and 15th July 2026,

respectively.


(xiii) There is an Affidavit-in-Rejoinder filed by the

Petitioner to the Affidavit-in-Reply filed by the


                     5/17
                                                       RJ-WP 7978.2026.doc

            Respondent – State.


5.          Mr. Sariputta Sarnath, the learned Counsel for the

Petitioner, has submitted that the Petitioner and similarly placed

students, who have been joined as Respondent Nos. 5 to 45, were

admitted to the Respondent No. 4 - Institute and have also paid the

their fees for such admission. He has placed reliance upon the List of

161 Students, including 101 excess students, which he submits have

been admitted along with their fees and which are available on the

Web Portal of Respondent No. 2 (Exhibit C to the Petition). This has

also been averred to in Paragraph 6 of the Petition.


6.          Mr. Sarnath has submitted that the Respondent No. 4 -

Institute had sought approval of excess intake capacity and the

approval was not granted by Respondent No. 2 and communicated by

Respondent No. 3 vide Letter dated 4th December 2025. This was for

Academic Year 2025-2026. He has submitted that Respondent No. 3,

had issued subsequent Communication dated 8th April 2026,

informing the Respondent No. 4 - Institute that Application for

additional intake capacity for Respondent No. 4 - Institute is rejected.

However, the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 5 to 45, who had been



                                  6/17
                                                        RJ-WP 7978.2026.doc

admitted to the said Certificate Course, were not informed about the

rejection of the Application for additional intake capacity. He

submitted that these students were thus under the impression that

the Respondent - State, taking into consideration the academic losses,

may absorb the students and permit them to complete the said

Certificate Course.


7.           Mr.   Sarnath has further submitted that the Petitioner

and other similarly placed students requested Respondent No.3 to

permit them to appear for the examination. A hearing was conducted

by the competent Authority on 19th June 2026, when the Petitioner

and other similarly placed students were permitted to be heard. He

has submitted that in view of the delay in deciding the above issue by

Respondent – State, which would result in academic loss to the

Petitioner, that the present Writ Petition was filed.


8.           Mr. Sarnath has accordingly submitted that the Petitioner

and other similarly placed students be permitted to take the

examinations for the said Certificate Course as they were under a

legitimate expectation that the Respondent No. 4 – Institute would

obtain permission with regard to their admissions. He has submitted



                                  7/17
                                                    RJ-WP 7978.2026.doc

that any lapse on the part of Respondent No. 4 - Institute should not

be at the prejudice of the Petitioner and similarly placed students,

given their bonafide belief that their admissions have been accepted

as they have been made to carry on with the said Certificate Course

which is near completion.


9.          Mr. A.I. Patel, learned Addl. GP appearing for the

Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 – State, has placed reliance upon the Affidavit

of Respondent No. 2. He has submitted that the Petitioner has made a

false statement in Paragraph 6 of the Writ Petition viz. that the

Petitioner and other similarly placed students who were part of the

101 excess students have been admitted to the Respondent No. 4 -

Institute by paying their fees. The particulars of the 161 students,

including the 101 excess students, is stated to be uploaded on the

Web Portal of Respondent No. 2 (Exhibit-C to the Petition). He has

submitted that this is contrary to the documents produced by

Respondent No. 2 in the said Affidavit. He has submitted that the

true fact is that the entire process of admission is through online

portal https://msbsvet.edu.in. The domain is governed and regulated

by   the   Government       of   Maharashtra    Skill,   Employment,

Entrepreneurship and Innovation Department of Maharashtra State


                                 8/17
                                                     RJ-WP 7978.2026.doc

Board of Skill, Vocational Education and Training. From this portal,

in the login section of Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 4 -

Institute, it clearly appears that only total sanctioned intake by

Respondent No. 2 is 60 seats, and the Respondent No. 4 - Institute

had admitted 60 candidates against the available 60 seats. All

admitted 60 candidates are approved by Respondent No.2 as per

online approval process.


10.         Mr. Patel has further submitted that Exhibit-C to the

Petition, which has been relied upon by the Petitioner, is not the

admission confirmation page as seen in the Respondent No.4 -

Institute's online account. After login by Respondent No. 4's Institute,

Paras Skill Development Institute, Akola, the details shown is the List

of Candidates who had applied and not being confirmed by

Respondent No. 4 – Institute.


11.         Mr. Patel has submitted that the mere application,

generation or payment of application fees on the online system does

not amount to scrutiny, verification, approval, validation, or

acceptance of the admission by Respondent No. 2. He has placed

reliance upon the relevant documents which have been annexed to



                                 9/17
                                                     RJ-WP 7978.2026.doc

the Petition in support of his submissions.


12.          Mr. Patel has submitted that the Petitioner has

deliberately used the expression "accepted" without there being any

order, communication, or decision of Respondent No. 2 evidencing

such acceptance.


13.          Mr. Patel has accordingly submitted that the Petition

deserves to be dismissed on the preliminary ground of misleading

statement made in the Petition and thus not approaching the Court

with clean hands. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the

Division Bench of this Court in Jagdish Ramnaresh Yadav vs. The

State of Maharashtra and Anr, Writ Petition No. 6624 of 2026, vide

Judgment dated 6th July 2026, which has placed reliance upon the

decision of the Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs.

Jagannath1, which lays down that, "a litigant who approaches the

Court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which

are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds vital documents in order

to gain advantage on the other side, then he would be guilty of

playing a fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party."



1 1994 1 SCC 1

                                 10/17
                                                     RJ-WP 7978.2026.doc

14.         Mr. Krishnakant Dhere, learned Counsel appearing for

Respondent No. 4 - Institute has submitted that during the pendency

of the Petition, the competent authority has passed the Order dated

25th June 2026, holding the admissions of 101 students in excess of

the sanctioned intake to be unauthorized, refusing permission to such

students to appear for the examination, directing refund of fees,

imposing penalty upon Respondent No. 4 - Institute, and directing

furnishing of an undertaking. He has submitted that the said order

has been passed inspite of Respondent No. 4 - Institute repeatedly

requesting enhancement of intake, and after the students had already

completed substantial part of the academic course.


15.         Mr. Dhere has submitted that the Respondent No. 4 -

Institute has filed an Appeal from the said Order dated 25th June

2026 within the prescribed period of limitation, and which is pending

consideration before the appellate authority. He has accordingly

submitted that the said order dated 25th June 2026 is under

challenge and has not attained finality.


16.         Mr. Dhere has submitted that the Respondent - State on

similar issue concerning welfare of students have allowed 50 students



                                 11/17
                                                  RJ-WP 7978.2026.doc

of MG Paramedical Technical Development Institution, Gondia in the

Year 2022 to appear for examination vide Order dated 6th May 2022.


17.         Mr. Dhere has further submitted that there are orders

which have been passed by Respondent - State granting additional

intake to other institutions on earlier occasions, and which orders

have been relied upon by Respondent No. 4 – Institute and annexed

to their Additional Affidavit-in-Reply. He has submitted that

Respondent No. 4 - Institute possesses infrastructure several times

more than the minimum requirement prescribed by the Government

authorities which is sufficient to conduct the said Course. He has

placed reliance upon the building plan, infrastructure details and

photographs which have been annexed to the Additional Affidavit.


18.         Mr. Dhere has submitted that it was only on 4th

December 2025, for the first time, Respondent No. 2 specifically

informed Respondent No. 4 - Institute that admissions made in excess

of the sanctioned intake would not be considered. Until the issuance

of this communication, Respondent No. 4 – Institute genuinely

believed that the proposal for enhancement remained under active

consideration.



                               12/17
                                                      RJ-WP 7978.2026.doc

19.            Mr. Dhere submitted that the admissions of the Petitioner

and other similarly placed students were never made with any

dishonest intention or any intent to violate the directions of the

Respondent authorities. He submitted that Respondent No. 4 -

Institute honestly believed that approval for enhancement of intake

would be granted, considering the available infrastructure, previous

approvals granted, and the continued correspondence with the

authorities.


20.            Having considered the submissions, it appears from the

documents produced by Respondent No. 2 in its Affidavit dated 29th

June 2026, that Respondent No. 2 had sanctioned intake in

Respondent No. 4 - Institute of 60 seats, and Respondent No. 4

Institute had in fact admitted 60 students against the sanctioned 60

seats. The entire process of admission is through the online portal

[https://msbsvet.edu.in], which domain is stated to be governed and

regulated by the Government of Maharashtra Skill, Employment,

Entrepreneurship and Innovation Department, Maharashtra State

Board of Skill, Vocational Education and Training. The 101 students,

which includes the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 5 to 45, have not

secured admission in the Respondent No.4 – Institute given the


                                  13/17
                                                   RJ-WP 7978.2026.doc

sanctioned intake capacity of 60 seats and admittedly 161 students

having applied for the said Certificate Course in Health Sanitary

Inspector. Thus, there is a misleading statement made in Paragraph 6

of the Petition that the names of 161 students, including 101 excess

students, have been included on the Web Portal of Respondent No. 2

along with their fees paid and which has been accepted by

Respondent No. 2 and at no point of time objected to by Respondent

No.2.


21.         Accordingly, we find much merit in the submission on

behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 viz. that the Petitioner, by making

such a misleading statement, has come to this Court with unclean

hands, and on this ground alone, the Petition deserves to be

dismissed with costs.


22.         The Respondent No. 4 - Institute, has inspite of being

aware that their Application for additional intake for the said

Certificate Course having been rejected on 4th December 2025 and

intimated to them vide Communication dated 17th December 2025

addressed by Respondent No.3, including it being stated in the said

communication that Respondent No. 4 - Institute shall upon



                                14/17
                                                    RJ-WP 7978.2026.doc

admitting excess students than the approved intake capacity, attract

penalty under the Act, has admitted the 101 excess students and

allowed them to continue with the said course in Respondent No. 4 –

Institute. The Respondent No. 4 - Institute has acted in blatant

violation of the Act. This has necessitated the Order dated 25th June

2026 passed by Respondent No.2 imposing a penalty on Respondent

No. 4 – along with the refund of the fees to the 101 excess students.


23.          We find such conduct of Respondent No. 4 - Institute,

which conduct itself gives an impression to the 101 students that

they are being continued in the said course as if their admissions

have been sanctioned, suffering from malafides apart from being

unauthorized.


24.          We do not accept the submission on behalf of

Respondent No. 4 - Institute that merely because there are orders

granting additional intake to other students on earlier occasions,

their conduct can be justified. Merely by filing an Appeal before the

appellate authority against the Order dated 25th June 2026, and

without any stay being granted, it cannot be contended that the said

order has not attained finality.



                                   15/17
                                                     RJ-WP 7978.2026.doc

25.         In these circumstances of the present case, apart from

the finding that the Petitioner has not come with clean hands, for

which the Petition requires to be dismissed, the Respondent No. 4's

conduct also cannot be exonerated. Hence, we impose costs on

Respondent No. 4, which is quantified in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-

payable to the High Court Staff Welfare Fund, Bombay.


26.         It has been a consistent view in several decisions of the

Supreme Court including in the decision of this Court in Nandini

Prakash Ingawale & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through its

Department of Medical Education and Drugs and Ors .2 that where the

institute has admitted the Petitioners inspite of not fulfilling the

requisite qualification by charging them the fees, the management of

the Institute is required to not only return the entire fees collected

from the Petitioners but also pay the costs for such conduct.


27.         We accordingly pass the following order:


            (i)    The Writ Petition is dismissed.


            (ii)   The Respondent No. 4 - Institute shall pay a sum


2 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3847

                                 16/17
                                           RJ-WP 7978.2026.doc

    of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as and by

    way of costs imposed upon them to the High Court Staff

    Welfare Fund, Bombay payable within a period of two

    weeks from the date of uploading of this order.




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




                        17/17