An educational institution cannot refuse to enroll a student just because he failed to attach a 3×4 photo to his documents. According to judge Fernando Cezar Carrusca Vieira, from the 3rd Federal Court of Piracicaba (SP), there was a lack of reasonableness in the school's attitude that prevented a student from taking a course. The author of the writ of mandamus states that, in February this year, he attended the institution to confirm his interest in one of the three remaining places on the course. At the time of registration, he noticed that the two photographs were missing and, therefore, requested a period of one hour to resolve the problem.



However, the professor who assisted him denied the Buy Phone Number List request and said that the absence of the document would result in the loss of the place. In its statement, the institution supported the legality of the act. He said that all candidates were informed that failure to present the mandatory documents, on the specified date and time, would result in automatic loss of the vacancy, in accordance with the rules set out in the notice. It alleges that the author of the action was warned that he would be on the waiting list and, if anyone dropped out after the start of classes, he could be called. In the decision, federal judge Fernando Cezar Carrusca Vieira highlighted that the student did not refuse to present the document, but merely requested a little more time to regularize the situation.







“In this sense, failure to present a document differs from what would be qualified as a fact that impedes enrollment, that is, the deliberate intention of not presenting the document.” The judge cited article 205 of the Federal Constitution, which establishes education as a right for everyone and a duty of the State and the family. It also mentions article 206, item I, which establishes that education will be provided based on the principle of equal conditions for access and permanence at school. For Fernando Vieira, “the act of demanding from the petitioner the immediate presentation, and at a unique opportunity and moment, of all the documentation provided for in the notice for registration (…), and without the opportunity or chance of any additional deadline, does not exhibit lawfulness under any approach, especially in the case where the missing document refers to two 3×4 photos”.