Sumit Anand vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi
1999 Latest Caselaw 944 Del

ORDER

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

1. The petitioner applied to the Delhi College of Engineering for being admitted into Part Time Course in Engineering. On 18.7.1999 Entrance Examination was held. On 6.8.1999 the result was declared and the petitioner was successful in the examination. The Programme fixed for the Course is as follows:-

Last Date for Receipt of Completed Applications: 18.6.1999 Date of B.Tech.Entrance Examination 18.7.1999 Date of Declaration of Result (Tentative) 06.8.1999

2. The petitioner went to the College on 18.8.1999 as he could not go to the College on 17.8.1999 as he was suffering from high fever and when he visited the College on 18.8.1999 he was informed that Admissions had been closed on 17.8.1999. On 18.8.1999 the petitioner made representation to the Principal in the following terms :-

"Sub : Admission to B. Tech. Course (Part-Time).

I have been declared successful in the competitive examination held for admission to B. Tech (Part-Time) Course of your College.

As per the prospectus for the said course the commencement of admission was to take place from 17.8.99. There was no last date specifically mentioned for the same. Unfortunately, due to high fever on 17.8.99, I could not come to the college and when I reached on 18.8.99 morning i.e. today, I was told that the admissions are over.

Sir, though I have qualified the entrance examination and Iam not a fault, Iam being denied admission. Iam therefore, to request you to look into my case sympathetically, so that my name is included in the admission list."

3. According to the petitioner there was an endorsement that the petitioner may be considered in case anybody withdraws from admission and there is consequent vacancy. The Chairman of the Admission Committee had made an endorsement on 19.8.1999 :-

"Pl consider Mr. Sumit Anand, Roll No. 1162 1st on withdrawal/vacant seat as his rank in 5th."

4. The petitioner belongs to schedule caste category and in that he was placed in the 5th while declaring the results. Later on, admission was not given. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the writ petition praying for the following reliefs :-

"issue a writ, order or direction, inn the nature of a writ of mandamus thereby directing the Respondents to grant the admission to the Petitioner for the B. Tech (Part Time) Civil Engineering branch course of the College."

5. The respondents had denied the allegations in the petition. According to the respondents, in the Bulletin issued by the College, it is specifically stated :-

"The successful candidates, will be required to present original certificates on a specific date and time. The schedule for the same will be displayed on the notice board. The candidates who are absent on the specified date and time and do not bring original certificates shall not be considered for admission."

Accordingly, on 9.8.1999 a notice was displayed inn the College, which is as under :-

NOTICE B. Tech. (P/T)

The admission to the B.Tech (Part Time) Course will be made on the following dates : 17.8.99 Civil Engineering 18.8.99 Mechanical Engineering 19.8.99 Electrical Engineering 20.8.99 Electronics & Communication Engg.

VENUE : Room FW3 FF9, Civil Deptt.,

DCE, Shahbad Daulatpur.

All candidates are hereby advised to appear for the admission as per the following schedule :-

10.30 AM to 1.00 PM

SC Category Raule 1 to 10

ST Category All candidates

Staff Category All candidates

General Category Raule 1 to 10

2.00 P.M.

General Category Raule 11 to 40.

All candidates are advised to produce the following original certificates at the said time.

(1) State Diploma of 3 years duration.

(2) Experience Certificate.

(3) Joining report with present employment.

(4) Date of birth certificate.

(5) N.O.C. from present employer.

(6) College fees Rs. 8048.00 in cash."

In paragraph 11 of the counter it is stated :-

"In reply to para - 11, it is stated that the case was sent to the Chairman, Admission Committee with the direction, as mentioned by the applicant. However, it is denied that seats were increased to accommodate the petitioner. In fact, it was done to keep the actual in-take of 30 intact, even after the closing date of admission, due to any withdrawal/s or drop out in future. This is as per policy of University that seats should not remain unfilled."

In giving the brief facts, it is stated :-

"Briefly the facts are that Bulletin of Information of B. Tech. Entrance Examination, 1999 was issued by Delhi College of Engi- neering, Bawana Road, Delhi. Entrance Examination was conducted on 18.7.99 and admission was to be made on the basis of candi- dates merit in the examination.

The following time schedule was prescribed for admission :-

A. Last Date for Receipt of Completed Applications : 18.6.1999

B. Date of B. Tech, Entrance Examination : 18.7.1999

C. Date of Declaration of Result (Tentative) 06.8.1999

D. Date of Commencement of B.Tech Admissions 17.8.1999

That there were in all 120 seats. 30 each in Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Electronic & Communication Engineering and Mechanical Engineering. As per reservation policy 15% are reserved for SC and 7 1/2 % for ST Category.

That as per clause 6(iv), (v) & (vi), candidates are expected to see result of the examination, displayed on the Notice Board of the college. The successful candidates also were required to present original certificates on specific date & time, schedule for the same to be displayed on the Notice Board. It is also specifically mentioned that candidates who are absent on the specified date & time do not bring original certificate shall not be considered for admission. Copy of the Bulletin is annexed as Anex. R-1.

That accordingly schedule of admission was displayed on the notice board on 9.8.99 Annexure R-2. As per schedule applicants for admission in the Civil Engineering discipline were to be entertained on 17.8.1999. Since the petitioner did not present himself on the schedule day nor any request was received from him absent postponement of his case for admission because of his sickness. All seats were filled up as per merit from amongst the persons who were present with original documents. As such petitioner now can be adjusted only if some one in SC category drops out."

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Anusuya Salwan submitted that the respondents had not acted in accordance with the programme issued. What is stated in the programme was the date of examination of the admission was 17.8.1999 and it cannot be said that the admission could be finished on one day. The petitioner had secured 5th rank in the Schedule Caste Category and the petitioner thought that it would take sometime to finish the admission by the respondents. As the petitioner was not doing well, he appeared on 18.8.1999 and believing the position of the petitioner the Chairman of the Admission Committee and the Principal had made the endorsement stated above. As a matter of fact, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, number of seats were increased from 30 to 33 and yet the respondents for reasons best known to them had not recommended the petitioner.

7. The learned counsel for respondent 1 & 3 Ms. Avnish Ahlawat submitted that the increasing in seat was not as stated by the petitioner. It was done in the usual course and all the 33 seats were filled up on 17.8.1999. And if the petitioner had sent the message on 17.8.1999 about his ill health, the respondents would have definitely kept one seat vacant but the petitioner had not taken care to inform the Selection Committee that the petitioner was not able to appear on 17.8.1999 owing to circumstances beyond his control and when the petitioner had not turned up on 17.8.1999 the respondents had proceeded as if the petitioner was not interested and, therefore, all the 33 seats were filled up. None of the candidates had withdrawn and there is no vacancy available and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for.

8. On the facts and circumstances, there is absolutely nothing that could be said against the respondents. The petitioner has not given any explanation as to why he could not send any message to the respondents. Now the petitioner has come forward with a theory that there was increase in the seats just to accommodate the petitioner and respondents had filled up those seats by allotting seats to their own candidates for which there is absolutely no basis.

9. I am not able to persuade myself to accept the case of the petitioner sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.