Mumbai: Bombay High Court has upheld Jamnalal Bajaj Institute of Management Studies’ cancellation of the admissions of three students to the two-year Masters of Management Studies for submitting forged documents showing inflated marks.“They would not have secured admission to the MMS course on the basis of their actual marks…In order to uphold the integrity and fairness of the academic admission process, we, accordingly, decline to interfere with the impugned communications,” said Justices Riyaz Chagla and Farhan Dubash in Monday’s verdict.The students, aged between 23 and 24 years, were granted admission for 2024-26 under Children of Indian Workers in Gulf Countries supernumerary quota based on their past academic performance and without an entrance examination. After a March 6 anonymous email alleged falsification of marks, their admissions were cancelled on May 27. On April 6, HC allowed them to appear for the fourth/final semester subject to the outcome of the petition.The judges noted that in the final merit list, the trio ranked tenth, sixth and third with 81.8%, 84% and 82.4%, respectively. Verification by two committees revealed their actual B Tech percentages scored at VNIT, Nagpur, VJTI and Delhi Technological University were substantially lower. Senior advocate Mihir Desai and advocates Arvind Tiwari and Atal Dubey said the documents were not forged by their clients but by persons within JBIMS to dishonestly implicate them.Desai argued that cancelling admissions at the fag end of the course was excessive. Agreeing with senior advocate Anil Anturkar, for JBIMS, the judges said “this court cannot permit passage of time, by itself, to cure an illegality which goes to the very foundation of the admission.” “To permit retention of such admissions solely because the institute discovered the alleged fraud after almost two years would create a perverse incentive. It would mean that the longer an irregular admission remained undetected, the stronger would become the student’s claim to retain it. Our conscience does not permit us to accept such a principle,” they added.Desai also argued that there was an absence of digital and forensic evidence connecting the disputed documents with the petitioners. The judges said the proceedings before the second committee, set up to hear the petitioners, were not a criminal trial requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt but addressed “whether the allegation was established on a preponderance of probabilities.” They found “some merit” in petitioners’ argument of “institutional neglect” and noted that both committees had raised concerns regarding negligence, dereliction of duty by admission officials and collusion with external agents. They “expect” JBIMS to ensure that supernumerary quota admissions for the relevant period are “independently examined” fairly and expeditiously and “appropriate action must follow” against those involved.
