The Delhi HC in, PRAYRAK MEHTA & ORS v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI, rejected the contention of the petitioner who challenged the evaluation criteria of the Extra-curricular activities quota. The petitioner’s first point grievance of the introduction of ECA in the 2020-21 session was however fulfilled by the University.
Facts
The petition was filed before the court to direct the DU to recognize all 14 extra-curricular activities for admission under Extra-Curricular Activities(ECA) and Sports quota for 2020-21. The petitioners include dancers, theatre artists, classical singers, and musicians. DU scrapped quotas for extracurricular this year and the petitioners plead that University mandates admission of at least 1% each of the total intake capacity of students under the ECA Category and Sports Quota subject to a ceiling of 5%. Also, they challenged the admission in the sports category without trials.
Action was taken by DU
During the pendency of the suit, DU included the 14 categories in ECA quota and time was given to register for the same, however, it added that applicants under the ECA category would be assessed only on the basis of the maximum of best 5 certificates of preceding three years and min marks to pass would be 20 out of 100. Further, the university told the court that due to the pandemic they are not in a position to conduct trials and virtual trial conduction would attract ill practices.
Petitioner’s Contention
Despite bringing back ECA, the petitioners are of the view that the criteria chosen for selection under the ECA Category are grossly arbitrary and subject to manipulations on the following grounds:-
- Admission solely on certificates is arbitrary since different disciplines have no common ground for marking.
- The straightjacket formula of marking fails to appreciate the differences between disciplines
- The performing arts students will get 12 marks while others like debating etc will get 44 marks. A person puts their entire life in such preparation of the arts.
- Uploading 5 best certificates cannot serve as a reliable index of extra-curricular proficiency.
- University must adopt different schemes for different disciplines with consultation
- trials through virtual platforms can only be an effective means to ensure fairness in admissions through ECA quota.
An admission committee was formed by DU to facilitate the admission under the ECA category.
Two more points were raised by the petitioner which challenged DU’s press release that said the marks under the ECA category will be awarded based on the sum total marks awarded in the three best certificates uploaded by the candidate. It was said that there were 4 categories in which marks could be scored that is 44 for participation/prizes and competition, 28 marks for training/examination, 16 marks for the workshop, and 12 marks for performance/publish work/exhibition (public), but no. of certificates to be considered was only 3. Also uploading 5 certificates from 3 years disregards the students who have enrolled at an earlier age. In case three certificates are taken for awarding marks to a student it is manifest that in one of the categories the student would get zero marks.
Respondent’s contention
DU stated that the fact that only 3 certificates are being taken into account is that a level playing field has been created and all the students who apply under different ECA categories will be adjudged on the same basis. They further stated that if a certificate is dated 1.5.2017 it can prescribe an experience of far more than 7-8 years also.
Court’s Analysis
The court perused last year’s notification which stated that the marking would be in the ratio of 75:25 that is a performance in the final trial and certificate evaluation which means weightage was given to certificates. Further, the court said that trials in present circumstances are not feasible and hence evaluation via certificates seems the best option and is not irrelevant in toto. Upon issue of uploading 5 certificates and choosing 3 best ones, the court said that the respondents have said that they would appoint a separate committee for separate activity. On the issue of the cutoff date of certificate being between 2017 to 2020, the court said that the arguments were baseless and The ECA Category for admission would necessarily be available to those students who are presently participating actively in those such activities. The court thus said that the basic grievance of petitioners of including ECA was fulfilled but the rest arguments were without merits.
Case Analysis
W.P.(C) 4001/2020
Counsel for Petitioners- Mr.N.Hariharan, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Sudeep Singh, Advs
Counsel for Respondents- Mr.Sachin Datta, Sr. Adv. along with Mr.Mohinder Rupal & Mr.Hardik Rupal, Advs.
Coram- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
