* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 740/2012 and CM 1615/2012
Decided on: 6th February, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF
PRAGYA CHAUDHARY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dilip Singh, Advocate with
Mr. Govind Sharma, Mr. Mritunjye Kumar and
Mr. Jolly Sharma, Advocates
versus
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY
AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar, Advocate with
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for R-1/GGSIPU.
Ms. Ferida Satarawala, Advocate with
Ms. Rachna Saxena, Advocate for R-2/college.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying inter alia for directions to respondent No.1/University to confirm her admission in Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (in short 'BAMS') course for the academic year 2011-12 in respondent No.2/college which is affiliated to respondent No.1/University. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the letter dated 05.12.2011 issued by respondent No.1/University to respondent No.2/college declining the request to lower the minimum eligibility as prescribed in the admission brochure for the academic session 2011-12, as being illegal. Lastly, W.P.(C) 740/2012 Page 1 of 10 directions are sought to respondent No.1/University and respondent No.2/college to relax the minimum eligibility criteria in terms of the letter dated 28.11.2011 addressed by respondent No.3/CCIM to respondent No.1/University.
2. The brief facts of the present case are that in the year 2009, the petitioner had passed her class XII examination and she had secured an aggregate percentage of 59.67% in three subjects, i.e., Physics, Chemistry and Biology. In the year 2011, she sat for the Common Entrance Test (in short „CET‟) for admission to BAMS course on the basis of the admission brochure circulated by respondent No.1/University. In the brochure for admission to BAMS course, the eligibility criteria for admission was laid down in clauses 5.3 and 5.4. The essential qualifications for eligibility for admission to the aforesaid course was stipulated in clause 5.3 as below:-
"5.3 Essential Qualifications Candidate must studied 11th and 12 class regularly and passed the 12th class under the 10+2 scheme/senior school certificate examination or an equivalent examination of the recognized University/Board of any Indian state with Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English (core or elective or functional)."
The minimum aggregate stipulated under the brochure was set out in clause 5.4, which is as below:-
"5.4 Minimum Aggregate W.P.(C) 740/2012 Page 2 of 10 Candidate must have passed in the subject of Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English (core or elective or functional) individually and must have obtained a minimum of 60% marks together in Physics, Chemistry, Biology (50% in case of S.C./S.T. candidates)."
3. It was further stipulated in clause (C) of the Important Notes for BDS/BAMS Programme (Code 02) in the brochure, that while deciding the basic eligibility of any candidate for admission there would be no rounding-off of the percentage of marks of the qualifying examination. It is an admitted case that though the petitioner did not qualify in terms of the eligibility criteria laid down in the aforesaid brochure for the BAMS course for the academic session 2011-12, respondent No.2/college had granted her provisional admission on 31.10.2011, subject to approval of the competent authority (Annexure P-4). Thereafter, the petitioner had deposited the fee with respondent No.2/college on the basis of her provisional admission in the BAMS course.
4. On 18.10.2011, respondent No.2/college informed respondent No.1/University that during the course of counselling, a few students did not fulfill the eligibility criteria of having scored a minimum of 60% marks and, therefore, could not be permitted to take admission, although, call letters were issued to them as well on the basis of a revised merit list issued by respondent No.1/University. In the said communication, the name of the petitioner had featured at Sr. W.P.(C) 740/2012 Page 3 of 10 No.7 and was shown under the general category with 59.67% marks in PCB. Respondent No.2/college requested respondent No.1/University to consider the case of the petitioner alongwith 19 other similarly placed students for a one time relaxation on the ground that there was an existing vacancy of 20 seats during the said session.
5. Counsel for the petitioner states that despite the aforesaid representation made by respondent No.2/college, respondent No.1/University illegally turned down the aforesaid request made by respondent No.2/college by issuing the impugned refusal letter dated 05.12.2011. He relies on the letter dated 28.11.2011 addressed by respondent No.3/CCIM to respondent No.2/college wherein, it was stated that under the relevant regulations prescribed by CCIM, the qualification for admission in BAMS course was prescribed as 12 th Standard with Science with at least 50% marks in aggregate in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology and that fixing 60% marks for admission would amount to debarring the students for admission falling between 50% to 60%. It is stated by learned counsel that though a copy of the aforesaid letter was forwarded by respondent No.3/CCIM to respondent No.1/University, the same was ignored while issuing the impugned rejection letter dated 05.12.2011. W.P.(C) 740/2012 Page 4 of 10
6. Counsel for respondent No.1/University opposes the present petition as being misconceived and states that the same is liable to be rejected. He submits that a similar case as that of the petitioner herein was considered by this Court in W.P.(C) 8138/2011 entitled Vrinda Gaur & Ors. vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Ors. decided on 14.12.2011, whereunder it had upheld the stand of respondent No.1/University that decisions regarding fixing of admission criteria rests with an expert body like the University and the Court ought not to interfere with the same unless some perversity, patent illegality of discrimination is demonstrated by the petitioner. He further states that just as in the aforesaid case, even in the present case, the petitioner has not challenged the vires of the relevant provisions of the admission brochure that has laid down the minimum eligibility criteria. Nor has she claimed that the respondent No.1/University has acted in a malafide manner. A copy of the aforesaid decision in the case of Vrinda Gaur (Supra) is handed over by the counsel for respondent No.1/University. While disposing of the aforesaid writ petition, it had been observed as below:-
"8. The Court has heard the counsels for the parties and has perused the judgments relied upon by them. First and foremost, the fact that provisional admission had been granted to them cannot be the basis for the petitioners to canvas that they are entitled to claim relaxation of the eligibility criteria for their admission to the course in W.P.(C) 740/2012 Page 5 of 10 question for the reason that being granted provisional admission to an Institute, does not in itself create a vested right in the petitioners to claim admission to the Institute. It cannot be overlooked that at the time of taking admission and depositing their fee, the petitioners were well aware of the fact that their admission was subject to approval by the competent authority. Therefore they took a calculated risk in taking provisional admission to the said Institute. Furthermore, a plea of the seats going abegging can also not be taken, as the petitioners as well as respondent No.3/Institute were aware of the fact that the petitioners‟ admission was provisional, and respondent No.3/Institute had the option to conduct another round of counseling and admit students who could meet the eligibility criteria.
In not having done so, it was the choice of the Institute to let its seats remain vacant. Furthermore, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Visveswaraiah Technological University vs. Krishnendu Halder reported as (2011) 4 SCC 606, the object of prescribing eligibility criteria is to ensure maintenance of excellence in standards of education and not to fill up all the seats. Reducing the standards to fill the seats was held to be a dangerous trend which would lead to destruction of the quality of education. A warning was sounded of the creeping commercialization of education and it was reiterated that determination of such standards being part of an academic policy of the University, are beyond the purview of judicial review.
9.The contention of the counsel for the petitioners that if the Court permits lowering of minimum eligibility criteria, no student would be prejudiced, appears attractive at first blush but when examined closely is untenable, as the said argument does not take into consideration those students who fell within the ranks and were called for counseling by respondent No.3/Institute but stayed away because they did not meet the minimum eligibility standards W.P.(C) 740/2012 Page 6 of 10 laid down by respondent No.1/University, and who are not before the Court and would be adversely affected if such a plea of the petitioners is accepted. Therefore, the ground taken by the respondent No.1/University in its letter dated 5.12.2011, denying relaxation of the eligibility criteria on the ground that it would prejudice the other students, is found to be a reasonable and valid ground."
10. xxx
11. Lastly, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.3/Institute had no objection to the lowering of the criteria and even respondent No.1/University had permitted the same for the next academic year, is also of no avail to the petitioners. It is settled law that policy decisions regarding the admissions in affiliated Institutes lies in the domain of the University in question. The decision-making power of the University cannot be interfered with under judicial review unless the petitioner is able to show some patent malafides on the part of the University, or point out instances of discrimination, or can make out a case that the criteria laid down is so perverse that it cannot be sustained. In the case of Siddhartha Kaul & Ors. v. GGSIU (Supra), the Division Bench has categorically held that merely because certain conditions imposed are inconvenient to some students, they cannot be said to be arbitrary. In the said decision, notice was also taken of a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Visveswaraiah Technological University v. Krishnendu Haldar reported as (2011) 4 SCC 606, wherein it had been held that the object of prescribing minimum standards is to ensure maintenance of excellence in standards of education and not to fill up seats, and lowering of such standards would result in destruction of the quality of education. In the present case, while the Court can sympathize with the predicament of the petitioners, it cannot help but observe that they have not been able to point out W.P.(C) 740/2012 Page 7 of 10 any such arbitrariness, illegality or perversity in the criteria laid down by respondent No.1/University for interference in judicial review. The petitioners are seeking relief purely on the grounds of equity, which ought not to be exercised in their favour, given the facts of the case. The powers of judicial review of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are well-defined, and a petition filed purely on the grounds of equity ought not to be ordinarily entertained, especially in the absence of any challenge laid in the petition to the vires of the relevant provisions of the applicable Rules." (emphasis added)
7. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not seek any relaxation from the court for rounding off the aggregate percentage obtained by her in view of the bar contained in clause (C) of the admission brochure. He only states that respondent No.1/University could not have ignored the letter dated 28.11.2011 addressed by respondent No.3/CCIM to it.
8. In the present case, the emphasis laid by the counsel for the petitioner on the correspondence resting between respondent No.3/CCIM and respondent No.2/college cannot be of much assistance to the petitioner, inasmuch as the eligibility criteria prescribed for admission to the BAMS Course had been clearly laid down in the admission brochure and respondent No.2/College was required to strictly adhere to the same. The aforesaid eligibility criteria was admittedly in public domain as long back as on 15.03.2011. In the W.P.(C) 740/2012 Page 8 of 10 present case, the petitioner had passed her XII class in the year 2009. Therefore, when she had applied for admission to the BAMS course, she was well aware of her aggregate PCB percentage in class XII. Despite the same, the petitioner took a chance, which can only be termed as a calculated risk to apply for admission to the aforesaid course in respondent No.1/University. Thereafter, respondent No.2/college gave provisional admission to the petitioner. But, merely because the admission granted to the petitioner was provisional in nature and thereafter she has been studying in respondent No.2/college since November 2011, cannot be a ground to sustain her admission in the light of the terms and conditions of eligibility prescribed in the Brochure and reiterated in the impugned letter dated 05.12.2011 issued by respondent No.1/University, wherein the request of respondent No.2/college to lower the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed in the admission brochure for 20 students was declined.
9. There is force in the submission made by learned counsel for respondent No.1/University that any such attempt on the part of respondent No.1/University to accommodate the petitioner and 19 other students at the request of respondent No.2/College would amount to interference and that too at a very belated stage for the reason that, granting relaxation in the eligibility criteria would cause serious prejudice to other candidates, who are not before the Court W.P.(C) 740/2012 Page 9 of 10 and were desirous of taking admission in the BAMS course in respondent No.1/University but stayed away in the light of the eligibility criteria laid down in the brochure. Merely because respondent No.1/University has extended an assurance to respondent No.2/college that for the academic year 2012-13, the minimum eligibility condition regarding percentage of aggregate marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology in XII class cannot be a ground for this Court to direct respondent No.1/University to accept the request of respondent No.2/College to admit the petitioner and 19 other students in the academic year 2011-12. The Court is also mindful of the fact that in matters relating to education, where time is of essence, the parties who choose to approach the Court belatedly cannot be granted relief, more so when the academic year is half way through and other similarly placed students, who had not applied for admission to the aforesaid course in respondent No.2/college on the basis of the eligibility criteria laid down by respondent No.1/University and had accepted the same as their fate, are not before the Court.
10. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine alongwith the pending application, as being devoid of merits.
(HIMA KOHLI)
FEBRUARY 6, 2012 JUDGE
rkb/anb
W.P.(C) 740/2012 Page 10 of 10