Competition for admission to professional courses is undoubtedly intense but no admission, however desirable, can justify manipulation of of an examination record, the Bombay High Court held while refusing to grant any relief to a student, whose provisional admission to a B.Tech course was cancelled by a University in Pune after noting that the scorecard submitted by the student did not match with the scorecard uploaded on the website of Maharashtra Health and Technical Common Entrance Test (MAH-MHT-CET).

A division bench of Justice Riyaz Chagla and Justice Farhan Dubash noted that the mark sheet submitted to the MIT-World Peace University (WPU) in Pune was different, indicating higher percentile but the scorecard later on uploaded on the MHT-CET portal indicated lower percentile. The judges then ordered the MHT-CET to enquire into these discrepancies in the two mark sheets and submit its report.

In its report, the MHT-CET Cell concluded that the scorecards relied upon by the student Shubham Mangire were not generated by the CET Cell and had been tampered with or fabricated. The bench while accepting the report, noted that the first scorecard indicated marks as 78.874707 and 73.5482364 in both the attempts, whereas the actual scorecard submitted by the MHT-CET indicated the marks as 7.8474707 and 13.5482364.

Accepting the report, the bench said, "We are conscious that the present proceedings are not criminal proceedings and that the Court must not prejudge any question of criminal liability. We therefore make it clear that our observations are confined to the authenticity of the scorecards and to the Petitioner's entitlement to relief in the present Writ Petition. Nothing stated in this order shall be construed as a finding that the Petitioner has himself committed any particular criminal offence or as precluding the competent authorities from taking such action as may be permissible in law, if they consider such action warranted."

The bench found the facts of the instant case to be 'deeply disturbing' and that it was 'unfortunate' that such things have happened in admissions in professional courses.

The bench observed, "An examination conducted for determining merit and allocating scarce educational opportunities necessarily depends upon the integrity of the examination process and the authenticity of the documents produced by candidates. Any attempt to manipulate marks, percentiles or scorecards strikes at the very foundation of that process. It is particularly unfortunate when such conduct arises in the context of admission to professional courses, where merit is intended to be the sole basis for securing an educational opportunity."

The bench further observed that malpractices in admission procession for such professional courses should not be left unchecked.

"Competition for admission to professional courses may undoubtedly be intense. The anxiety of a student to secure admission, and the disappointment that may follow upon obtaining a lower score or percentile, are understandable. What cannot, however, be countenanced is the adoption of impermissible means to overcome the consequences of an examination result. No admission, however desirable, can justify the manipulation of an examination record. If such practices are allowed to go unchecked, the consequence is not merely an individual illegality, it is an injustice to every student who has participated in the examination honestly and competed on the basis of his or her actual performance," the bench observed.

Further, the bench refused to give a finding as to who actually manipulated the scorecards and instead directed the concerned authorities to act in accordance with law, whether any disciplinary, administrative or criminal proceedings are warranted in the case.

"If the University or the State CET Cell or any other competent authority considers it necessary to inquire into the manner in which the scorecard relied upon by the Petitioner came into existence or came to be used, such exercise shall be undertaken independently and in accordance with law," the bench ordered.

With these observations, the bench dismissed the plea filed by the student and refused to interfere in the decision of the University to cancel his provisional admission.

Appearance:

Advocate Sandeep Pathak appeared for the Petitioner.

Advocates Sameer Khedekar and Mayuri Andhale represented the MHT-CET.

Assistant Government Pleader Savina Crasto represented the State.

Case Title: Shubham Vijay Mangire vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 9114 of 2026)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 394

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment