Romil Jain vs Indian Institute Of Technology
1997 Latest Caselaw 12 Del

JUDGMENT

Cyriac Joseph, J.

(1) The petitioner is an applicant for the admission to the Mba programme conducted by the respondent - Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi. He has approached this Court against the proposed cancellation of the provisional admission given to him on the ground that he did not produce proof of having appeared/passed in the qualifying examination by 31.7.1997.

(2) According to the petitioner, he is a final year student of B.Tech (Bachelor of Technology) in Jamia Millia Islamia. The final year examination of B.Tech course was scheduled to be started from 2nd May, 1997 but owing to the strike in the university the examination could not be held in time. The examination commenced only from 22nd July, 1997 and was scheduled to be completed by 29th August, 1997 The results of the examination were expected to come by the end of September, 1997 In the meanwhile, the petitioner had in November, 1996 submitted his application for admission to Mba programee (1997-1998 session) in the Department of Management Studies of the Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi. The petitioner appeared in the written test held on 21st December, 1996 and in the group discussion/interview held on 14th February, 1997. On the basis of his performance in the written test and group discussion/interview the petitioner was officered admission to the Mba programee vide Annexure A letter dated 7.5.1997 of the respondent Bythesaidletterdated7.5.1997 the petitioner was in formed that he had been selected for the admission to the Mba programme on full time basis subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter. It was specifically stated in the said letter that the petitioner's admission was provisional subject to the production of attested of the qualifying degree certificate/mark sheets showing the required percentage of marks/CGPA by 31.10.1997 and also proof of having appeared passed in the qualifying examination by 23.7.1997. It was further directed that ther petitioner must report for central registration on 23rd July, 1997 at 3.00 pm. if he failed to register on 23rd July, 1997 the offer of admission would automatically stand cancelled, even if he had already paid the institute/hostel dues. Pursuant to Annexure A letter dated 7.5.1997 the petitioner deposited the first instalment of dues amounting to Rs. 28,950.00 within the stipulated time but since his final year examination in B.Tech course (qualifying examination) had not been held he was not in a position to submit proof of his having appeared/passed in the qualifying examination by 23.7.1997 or by the extended date of 31st July, 1997. According to the petitioner, he would be in a position to submit the said proof of having appeared/passed in the qualifying examination only on or after 29th August, 1997 on which date the said examination was expected to be completed. 7 he petitioner approached the respondent through Annexure B letter dated 17.7.1997 requesting that lie night be permitted to submit the proof of having appeared in the qualifying examination after 29th August, 1997.1 However the petitioner did not receive any reply. Thereafter the petitioner's father made a written request dated 25.7.1997 to consider his son's case sympathetically. No reply was received to the said request also. The petitioner's father again submitted Annexure E mercy petition dated 28.7.1997 requesting for relaxation of the date for submitting proof of having appeared in the qualifying examination. The said petition also did not evoke any response from respondent.

(3) Hence the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the respondent to grant relaxation/permission to the petitioner to submit the proof of having appeared in qualifying examination by 29th August, 1997 when his examination would be completed. He has also prayed for a direction to the respondent not to cancel the offer of admission contained in Annexure A letter dated 7.5.1997. After filing the writ petition and before notice was issued to the respondent the petitioner placed on record a copy of the communication dated 31.7.1997 received from the respondent informing the petitioner that the respondent had decided that selected candidates whose examinations were not over by 31.7.1997 should not be permitted for the Mba programee.

(4) The respondent has filed a reply to the show-cause notice. It is stated therein that the petitioner has no fundamental right to demand relaxation of the rules for admission in Mba course conducted by the respondent. It is contended that since the petitioner has not challenged the validity or the legality of the admission process and procedure and since there is also allegation of malafides against the respondent this Court cannot interfere with the policy, procedure and process of admission. According to the respondent, candidates from all over the country participated in the selection process for admission to the Mba course conducted by the respondent. Since the Mba course required complete dedication and commitment the attendance in the course is a very important part. The rules require that every candidate should have at least 75% of the attendance for continuing in the Mba course. For the purpose, the selection process for admission is completed even prior to the candidates appeared in their qualifying examination. As per the programme, the classes for Mba course should commence in the month of July even when the results of the candidates in their qualifying examination have not been declared. However, it is required that before the commencement of the classes the candidates should have appeared in their qualifying examinations and are mentally and physically tree to start attending the classes of Mba course. Since almost all the results in the qualifying examination of various educational institutions in the country are completed latest by the month of September/October, it has been provided in the rules that a candidate seeking admission should furnish the proof of having appeared/passed in the qualifying examination by 23rd July, 1997 and should produce the attested copies of the qualifying degree certificate/mark sheets by 31st October, 1997.

(5) The respondent has produced as Annexure Rl a copy of the semester schedule for the first semester 1997-1998 issued by the institute on 5.5.1997. It shows that classes for the Mba course were scheduled to commence from 24.7.1997. The respondent has also pointed out that the rules provided a maximum of 7 days' extension for submission of the proof of appearing/passed the qualifying examination. In other words, the last date for submission of proof of appearing/ qualifying examination stood extended from 23.7.1993 to 31st July, 1997. Annexure Rl semester schedule shows that the first test as per the semester was scheduled to be held on 28.8.1997. It is further stated in the reply that in response to the representation of the petitioner's father the petitioner was informed that selected candidates whose examinations were not over by 31.7.1997 would not be permitted for the Pc programme. It is contended by the respondent that unless and until candidate has already appeared in the qualifying examination he cannot join the classes in the Mba course and cannot be granted admission. As the attendance rules specifically require 75% attendance, the stipulation regarding submission of proof of having appeared in the qualifying examination latest by 31st July, 1997 is absolutely reasonable, proper and rationale. It is further contended that if the Institute waits for the candidate to appear in qualifying examination according to the schedules of the respective colleges/institutions and does adopt a cut off date for start of the Mba course, it would become absolutely impossible to conduct the programme in a proper way. According to the respondent, the cut off date of 24.7.1997 for submission of the proof of having appeared in examinations is not a mere formality but is absolutely essential for conducting the programme.

(6) In the light of contentions raised by the parties, the first question to be considered is whether the stipulation of cut off date for production of proof having appeared/passed in the qualifying examination is arbitrary or unreasonable. Since the applicants for admission to the Mba course in question are candidates who appeared in the qualifying examination conducted by different colleges/institutions all over India since the course is a time-bound programme following semester system it is not only proper but also necessary that a common and definite time schedule is followed by the respondent with regard to the process of admission. Though the candidates are selected for admission on the basis of their performance in the written test and group discussion/interview, it is mandatory that such candidates should have passed the qualifying examination with the required percentage of marks. The course was scheduled to commence on 24.7.1997 and in fact it had commenced from date. The respondent has only insisted that at the time of final registration the candidate should have atleast appeared in the qualifying examination and has insisted that the results of qualifying examination should be available by the time. By any stretch of imagination this cannot be held to be arbitrary or reasonable. Whatever be the performance of a candidate in the written test and interview, he has no right to be admitted to the course if he has not even appeared in qualifying examination. Hence the respondent has only acted properly and wisely in insisting that before admitting a student to the course he should produce proof of having appeared in the qualifying examination.

(7) The next question is whether the provisional admission offered to the petitioner is liable to be cancelled on account of his failure to produce proof of having appeared in the qualifying examination at least by the extended date of 31.7.1997. Since I have held that the stipulation of cut off date for production of proof of having appeared in the qualifying examination is proper.necessary and valid, the respondent is liable to adhere to the already announced procedure for admission. It is neither desirable nor practical for the respondent to wait till all the colleges/ institutions in the country complete their examination programme with regard to the qualifying examination. Any deviation from the announced schedule of admission process will only upset the course programme and will result in prejudice to the students who are entitled to admission. It is for this reason that Annexure A letter dated 7.5.1997specifically stated that if the petitioner failed to register on 23rd July, ]997(laterextendedup to31stJuly, 1997) the offer of admission would automatically stand cancelled. Hence in terms of the conditions mentioned in Annexure A letter dated 7.5.1997 the provisional admission offered to the petitioner stood automatically cancelled on 31.7.1997 since he failed to produce proof of having appeared in the qualifying examination. Therefore the provisional admission offered through Annexure A letter cannot confer any right on the petitioner for admission to the course.

(8) The next question is whether the action of the respondent in refusing to extend the time for production of proof of having appeared in the qualifying examination was illegal or unjust. In the light of discussion above, there is no doubt that the respondent could not and should not have extended the time till the Jamia Millia Islamia completed the qualifying examination which was not expected before the end of September. The time schedule for the admission process cannot be changed to suit the convenience of each candidate. As already noted, the dasses started on 24.7.1997 and the last date for the registration was 31.7.1997. There is no logic in insisting that a candidate who has not appeared in the qualifying examination should be admitted to the course merely because he has been selected in the competitive test. Giving time to produce the mark sheet and giving time to produce proof of having appeared in the qualifying examination are different and cannot be treated similarly. There is absolutely nothing arbitrary in stipulating that at least within a week of commencement of classes a candidate should produce proof of having appeared in the qualifying examination. The petitioner has no enforceable right to admission to a course even before he has not appeared in the qualifying examination. He has also no enforceable right to claim relaxation in respect of the time for production of proof of having appeared in the qualifying examination. The petitioner may be unfortunate victim of the situation prevailing in his university. But the respondent cannot be compelled to delay the course or to upset the time schedule for admission just for the convenience of one individual.

(9) In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the writ petition which is liable to be dismissed. This is a classic case of a brilliant student losing the opportunity to pursue a prestigious post graduate course due to the delay in holding the qualifying examination by the university due to strike. I wish that the protagonists of strikes - whether they are teachers or students - realised the serious harm being done to the young generation by such strikes. I can only sympathise with the petitioner who had to sacrifice his ambitions about brilliant career at the altar of strikes and bandhs in the educational institutions.

(10) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.