Premium
This is an archive article published on July 3, 2023

No immediate relief, but MBA admission subject to outcome of students’ plea: HC

The court on June 30 had sought a reply by the state Common Entrance Test cell as to how it will rationalise admissions for MBA after petitioners pointed out glitches in the results and admission process.

MBA CET admissions, Bombay High Court, admission process, CET cell, indian express, indian express newsSeeking an affidavit in reply to the plea from the CET cell by July 7 and rejoinder from the petitioner, the bench posted further hearing to July 10. (Express Photo)
Listen to this article
No immediate relief, but MBA admission subject to outcome of students’ plea: HC
x
00:00
1x 1.5x 1.8x

Bombay High Court on Monday refused immediate interim relief at the present stage to over 150 petitioner students aggrieved by state CET cell’s “non-transparent” and haphazard conduct and said the admission process beginning July 7 can go on, but it will be subject to the outcome of the plea.

A division bench of Justice Gautam S Patel and Justice Neela K Gokhale was hearing a plea by Jay Rikame and other students who have raised objections to the process for normalisation of marks adopted by the CET cell after it conducted a re-test for some students.
The petitioner students argued through advocate SB Talekar and Madhavi Ayyappan claimed that the postgraduate management admission process in the state is “vitiated due to lack of transparency and fairness in the manner of conducting”. They said the CET cell has failed to frame detailed rules, unlike those released for engineering, pharmacy and other exams.

The petitioners also told the division bench that some questions in the test conducted in March were leaked as students appeared for the same question paper at different times, resulting in the cell conducting a re-test in May this year for select students.

Story continues below this ad

The court on June 30 had sought a reply by the state Common Entrance Test cell as to how it will rationalise admissions for MBA after petitioners pointed out glitches in the results and admission process.

On Monday, Advocate General Birendra Saraf, representing the Maharashtra government, submitted that in February this year, the schedule for the test was declared and over one lakh candidates were divided into four batches with separate exams to be conducted for them.

Saraf said that in the test conducted for the first batch of students, there were some technical glitches and after students raised their grievances, they were given an option to appear for the exam again in the ‘fifth’ and additional batch.

He said some students had filed a writ petition, after which an advertisement was issued for the fifth batch exam for aggrieved students to give exams again. In view of the fresh notice, the court rendered earlier plea infructuous, Saraf added. Saraf said that of the total of 11, 562 students who appeared for the fifth batch test on May 6, more than 70 students were the present petitioners. He said there was a separate percentile score for the batch concerned, and they were considered a “separate pool.”

Story continues below this ad

“They (petitioners) waited for their result, which was declared on June 23, and now they have filed a petition to undo results and processes, because they have not done well. A fresh exam was ordered as per their earlier grievance. It’s a setback for thousands of other students. We are concerned about their rights, and the admission process will be delayed if plea is allowed,” Saraf argued.

Talekar claimed that the normalisation process was flawed, as there had to be an equal number of students in every batch. The bench said there are nearly one lakh students of whom just about 150 have filed the plea. And as the admission process starts July 7, no immediate interim relief can be granted at the present stage. However, it clarified that the admission process will be subject to the outcome of the present plea.

Seeking an affidavit in reply to the plea from the CET cell by July 7 and rejoinder from the petitioner, the bench posted further hearing to July 10.

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Loading Taboola...
Advertisement