[ad_1]
The Bombay High Court, while quashing the order of Mumbai University Vice Chancellor wherein it rejected the Senate poll nomination of a candidate, recently expressed displeasure over the university’s “entirely bureaucratic approach”.
On June 19, a division bench of Justice Gautam S Patel and Justice Neela K Gokhale was hearing a plea by Sanjay Baburao Shete, a member of Bombay Physical Culture Association (BPCA). He challenged MU’s decision to reject his nomination form for the University senate only for want of a National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) certificate.
The petitioner showed an e-mail by NAAC to the Principal of BPCA’s College of Physical Education, Mumbai, which confirmed on March 30 this year, that the institution had been accredited for a period of five years.
After MU rejected his nomination on June 12, the petitioner appealed before the Vice Chancellor on June 14, whereby he had the list of two institutions approved by NAAC, showing the petitioner’s college as second on the list.
Senior advocate Mihir Desai and advocate Ajinkya M Udane submitted that the college has been accredited for several cycles before, and the petitioner has served on the Senate earlier as well. It was argued that an actual physical certificate or at least an “actual certificate” was not sent in by the petitioner. The respondents also argued that the Principal ought to have corresponded with NAAC and obtained the certificate.
“We fail to appreciate this entirely bureaucratic approach. Nothing stopped the University from directly corresponding with NAAC and obtaining a confirmation. The e-mail that is now shown to us is sufficient, and if the University wants, it is at liberty to cross check with NAAC. If the University ultimately finds that NAAC did not accredit the college in question, there is no doubt that the petitioner will forthwith have to resign from his seat on the Senate. Then the University may take whatever steps that it desires. But we do not see how a nomination can be rejected on facts such as these.”
The court allowed the petition and quashed and set aside an order passed by registrar-cum-returning officer of the MU, as well an order dated June 16 passed by the university’s vice chancellor.
The court allowed the petitioner to contest elections on the conditions it had laid down and disposed of the plea.
[ad_2]
