Shyamal Kumar vs University Of Delhi And Ors.
1998 Latest Caselaw 1110 Del

JUDGMENT

Cyriac Joseph, J.

1. According to the averments of the petitioner he was a regular student of LL.B. Course at Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi for the academic session 1995-98. He passed in 29 out of 30 papers of the LL.B. Course and failed in the remaining paper Jurisprudence i. Hence he had to appear in the supplementary examination for the said paper. The result of the supplementary examination was declared on 24.8.1998 and the petitioner was declared to have passed in the supplementary examination. In the meanwhile the petitioner had applied for admission to LL.M. Course for the session 1998-2000 and had appeared in the admission test. He secured rank No. 15 in the merit list. There were 20 seats in the general category. The first admission list of 20 candidates of the general category was notified on 27th July, 1998. The candidates whose names had appeared in the first list published on 27th July, 1998 were directed to submit the duly filled up admission forms alongwith the documents by 29th July, 1998 even if the result of their qualifying examination had not been declared. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted the duly filled up admission form and documents except the result of the qualifying examination. Though the petitioner had applied for the confidential result of the supplementary examination it was not available when the admission form was submitted. The confidential result was received only on 10th August, 1998 and it was promptly submitted on the same day. However, in the meanwhile the Convener of the Admission Committee had published another notice requiring the candidates to complete the admission formalities including payment of fees latest by 8th August, 1998 failing which they would lose their right to admission. Even the confidential result of the supplementary examination in the case of the petitioner was received only on 10th August, 1998 and hence the petitioner could not complete the admission formalities within the stipulated time. Consequently admission was denied to the petitioner.

2. Aggrieved by the denial of admission of LL.M. course in the circumstances stated above the petitioner filed this writ petition praying for directions to the respondents the Vice Chancellor, the Dean, Faculty of Law and the Admission Committee, Faculty of Law of the Delhi University to consider the case of the petitioner for admission to LL.M. course as he had submitted the confidential result of the supplementary examination on 10th August, 1998. Professor A.K. Kaul, Convener of the Admission Committee has filed an affidavit on behalf of the respondents. According to the averments in the said affidavit the prospectus issued by the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi for the year 1998-99 contained a schedule of relevant dates. As per the said schedule the date of entrance test for LL.M. was 12th July, 1998 and the date of declaration of result of the entrance test was 17th July, 1998. The admission list was to be published on 27th July, 1998. Last date of close of admissions would be later notified on the Notice Board of the Admission Committee. The result of the entrance test was declared on 27.7.1998 itself. In all there were 30 seats to be filled in the LL.M. course. Of these 15% seats were reserved for Scheduled Castes and 7.5% seats were reserved for Scheduled Tribes. The first merit list of 21 candidates in the general category was published on27.7.1998. When the merit list was displayed on 27.7.1998 the result of only three seats in the general category, namely Serial Nos. 14, 20 and 21 were available as they had passed the LL.B. course in previous years. The result of all other candidates was awaited. In the notice displayed on the Notice Board by the Admission Committee the candidates whose names appeared in the merit list were notified that the last date by which their forms would be accepted was 31.7.1998. It was further stated in the notice that the forms must be submitted by the said date even if the result of the qualifying degree had not been declared. Except one, all the candidates of the general category submitted their forms by 31.7.1998. This necessitated a further list of one candidate in the general category which was displayed on 4.8.1998. The result of Law Centre-I and Campus Law Centre in respect of LL.B. course and the result of the supplementary examination had not been declared by 27.7.1998. Hence some of the candidates approached the Dean, Students Welfare of the University of Delhi urging that the Faculty of Law should be asked to wait till their results were declared so that they could be admitted to the courses concerned. The Dean, Students Welfare put up a note to the Vice Chancellor on 30.7.1998 stating that as the delay in the publication of results was the responsibility of the University, the Vice Chancellor should instruct the Faculty of Law to keep seats reserved for such candidates till their results were out. The Vice Chancellor approved the note on the same date and a copy of the same was forwarded to the Dean, Faculty of Law for necessary action. The Dean forwarded the said note to the Convener of the Admission Committee for necessary action and the Convener called a meeting of the Admission Committee on 4.8.1998. All Members of the Admission Committee were present. In the context of the note received from the Dean, Students Welfare, the following decision was taken by the Admission Committee.

"The Admission Committee noted that the results of most of the candidates who were in the merit list had been declared by 31.7.1998. However, the results of some candidates who appeared in the Supplementary Examination had not been declared so far. It was noted that in the matter of admissions to LL.M. Courses, no distinction had been made in the past between those candidates who passed in the qualifying examination in three years period and those who sought admission after clearing some of their left out papers in Supplementary Examination. No such distinction is made in any rule either. All that is required for the purpose of admission to LL.M. course is that the candidate must have passed the qualifying examination which is LL.B. course in the instant case and the period within which the candidate has passed that examination, be it supplementary does not matter so long as it is permitted under the rules. It was, however, noted that the classes were to commence on 10.8.1998 and, therefore, it would be in the interest of teaching and maintenance of academic standards that some cut off date must be fixed for completing the admission. Accordingly, it was decided unanimously that 8.8.1998 should be fixed as the last date for deposit of fees in respect of candidates whose names appeared in the meritlists. It was further decided that if some seats were still available, the admission process should be completed by 17.8.1998 but admission should be offered to only those whose result of LL.B. had come by 8.8.1998."

In the case of the petitioner the result of the supplementary examination was admittedly delivered to the Admission Committee only on 10.8.1998 which was beyond the last date prescribed by the Admission Committee in its meeting held on 4.8.1998. It is contended that some cut off date had to be fixed by the Admission Committee and that the Admission Committee in its discretion fixed the date as 8.8.1998 and resolved that only those candidates whose result of the qualifying examination had come by that date would be admitted to the course. It is further contended that the above exercise of discretion by the Admission Committee cannot be regarded as fanciful, capricious, whimsical or arbitrary. It is stated that the discretion was properly exercised keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further stated that since the petitioner's result of the qualifying examination was not available by 8.8.1998 the denial of admission to him cannot be helped.

3. In his affidavit the Convener of the Admission Committee has denied the allegation that the Admission Committee procured confidential result of candidates from the Examination Branch. It is stated that there was no such policy of procuring the result confidentially from the Examination Branch. It is further stated that the petitioner did not make any request to the Admission Committee or to any Member of the Admission Committee to obtain the result of the Supplementary Examination from the University confidentially. It is also denied that the Admission Committee verbally assured the petitioner that the Committee would wait till the result of his Supplementary Examination was published. It has also been clarified that in the case of Ms. Prabha Tiwary mentioned in the writ petition she was given admission on the basis of the result produced by her.

4. In the light of the rival contentions stated above the only question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the denial of admission to the petitioner on the ground that the result of the qualifying examination was not available on or before 8.8.1998 is illegal or arbitrary. The respondents are competent to prescribe the eligibility criteria for admission to the LL.M course. As per the criteria prescribed by the respondents a candidate seeking admission to LL.M. course should have passed the LL.B. examination. The respondents are competent to insist that the result of the qualifying examination should be produced before admission is granted to a candidate. They are also justified in stipulating a last date for submission of the result of the qualifying examination and completion of admission formalities. The last date so fixed by the Admission Committee was 8.8.1998. In view of the fact that classes were to commence on 10th August, 1998 the decision of the Admission Committee to fix 8.8.1998 as the last date for submission of the result of the qualifying examination cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary or perverse. Any candidate who could not submit the result of the qualifying examination before the last date fixed by the Admission Committee forfeits his right for admission even though his name was included in the merit list prepared on the basis of the entrance test. The Court cannot find fault with the Admission Committee for not waiting indefinitely for the result of the qualifying examination in respect of each candidate whose name was included in the merit list. It is not only desirable but also necessary that certain time schedule is strictly followed in the matter of admission to courses and conduct of courses and examinations. The hardship or difficulty or loss of opportunity that may be caused to one or a few individuals cannot be a ground for interfering with the decisions of the Educational Authorities and for disturbing the time schedule fixed and followed by such authorities. Unless it is shown that the time schedule has been fixed arbitrarily or that it had not been followed uniformly the Court should not interfere. In this case the petitioner could not show that the time schedule fixed by the Admission Committee was arbitrarily or that the time schedule was not followed uniformly. It is well settled that in academic matters interference by the Court should be minimum and that the Court may interfere only when such interference is absolutely necessary to prevent serious injustice or to set right grave illegalities. I am not satisfied that the facts and circumstances of this case warrant interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It should be mentioned that the petitioner could not get admission to LL.M. course because of the delay in producing the result of the supplementary examination and not the result of the annual final year examination. It will be too much to ask the Admission Committee to wait till the result of the supplementary examination becomes available. Students who do not pass in the regular examinations will have to face such difficulties. They are only paying the price for the neglect of their studies. Hence they do not deserve any special indulgence. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.