Udit Sehgal vs University Of Delhi And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1946 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. The question arising for consideration in this petition is whether an applicant is to be confined to the 'category' under which he/she applies for admission or due to subsequent events, a change in category as sought can be permitted, prior to the closure of the admission.

2. The facts in brief are:-

(i) Mr. Udit Sehgal a student with good academic credentials having secured 93% marks in the 12th class appeared in the competitive entrance examination, for admission to B.E. Course of the University of Delhi, for the academic session 2002-03. Petitioner applied in the 'General Category' vide his application dated 22.3.2002. On 3.5.2002 he fell from a running bus and sustained injuries, resulting in dis-ability to him. A certificate dated 11.6.2002, has been issued by the Department of ENT, Safdarjung Hospital, certifying that petitioner is suffering from Bilaterial Sensineural hearing loss as per the audiogram done on 8.6.2002. A hearing loss of 50 db in both the ears is reported. Petitioner submits that as a result of the trauma of the accident and the loss of hearing suffered, petitioner became dis-abled prior to the examination. He therefore ought to be considered under the 'DH Category', representing a handicapped candidate from Delhi.

(ii) The entrance examination was held on 26.5.2002 and the results were declared on 4.6.2002. Petitioner is stated to be ranking at 1803. Petitioner does not get qualified in the 'general category'. However, if a change in category to 'Handicapped' is allowed, petitioner perhaps would have a chance.

3. Mr. Rakesh Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though as per the terms given in 'Bulletin of Information' a change in category after submission of the application from is not permitted. Admissions Committee is empowered to take into account special factors and made recommendations to the academic Council. For this, he places reliance on Sub-clause 4 of Chapter I of Ordinance II of the Delhi University. The Standing Committee of the Academic Council can review and finalise, the cases of admission, as are specifically referred to it by different course Admission Committee. Mr. Khanna submits that the provisions of the Ordinance show that the Admission Committee as well as the Academic Council have the powers to grant admission, where special circumstances exit. Similar power are vested with the Vice-Chancellor.

4. Adverting to another aspect of the case, Mr. Khanna, submitted that the benefit of handicapped category should not be confined to only those, who have a genetic dis-ability from the beginning, rather persons, who are normal and acquire dis-ability on account an accident, deserve preference and a more compassionate treatment. Persons like the petitioner apart from the dis-ability, also undergo the trauma, pain and shock of becoming permanently dis-abled are in greater need of relief. Mr. Khanna, therefore, submits that the denial of benefit of physical handicapped category person to such a person, would be in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, it is submitted that petitioner suffered dis-ability 23 days before the competitive entrance examination and his performance fell down on account this also. Petitioner's past performance in the CBSE was good, where he secured 93% marks.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the observations made by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and M.S. Grewal and Anr. v. Deep Chand Sood and Ors. , to urge that the Court in such cases could come to the rescue of the parties to give relief and satisfy the social aspiration and economic needs of the citizens. Courts are not bound by legal technicalities. A justice oriented approach ought to be adopted, rather than relief being denied on the basis of technicalities and such technicalities be not permitted to outweigh the course of justice. Learned counsel also places reliance on Kum.C.P. Prathima Devi v. Medical Council of India and Ors. , wherein a student suffering from kidney ailment, was permitted to migrate to a place, where treatment for kidney ailment was available, despite prohibition as per rules.

6. In the instant case, petitioner requested for change of category on 2.7.2002. Mr. Khanna, therefore, submitted that petitioner be permitted to have a change in the category and consequential relief based on the changed category be permitted. In the alternative, he submits that Academic Council may be asked to consider the case of the petitioner for being allowed as a case on account of special circumstances.

7. Mr. A. Mariaputham, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the writ petition. He firstly referred to the conditions in the Bulletin of Information conditions No. 2 is as under:

"No change of Region/category will be permitted after the receipt of completed application form."

The application form in this case was received on 22.3.2002, which was the cut off date. Admittedly, the change in category was sought by the petitioner only on 26th June, 2002. Learned counsel further submits that even the dis-ability in the petitioner's case occurred after the submission of the application form. Learned counsel submits that the admissions are closed and all the seats have been filled up. Mr. Mariaputham submits that the dis-ability is stated to have occurred on 3.5.2002, while the results were declared on 4.6.2002. Curiously the petitioner, he submits, did not make any representation prior to the declaration of the result. This would show that petitioner was waiting for the result to be declared and the change of category has been sought only thereafter to see if some advantage can be taken out of the accident that has taken place. He places reliance on Harpal Kaur Chahal (Smt.) v. Director, Punjab Institutions, Punjab and Anr. reported at 1995 Supp(4) Supreme Court Cases 706. It was urged in this case that the material date for determining the eligibility was the last date fixed of the receipt of application. A candidate, who did not possess the requisite qualification on that day would remain ineligible, although he may acquire qualification subsequently. The appointment made in the said case was held to be illegal. Reliance is also placed on State of Rajasthan v. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt . In the cited cases a candidates did not meet the eligibility conditions by the cut of date as a result of an interim order of the court, he was directed to be called for an interview. The candidate was considered and provisionally selected and continued to serve. The Supreme Court held that the candidate was ineligible and did not possess the requisite qualifications as on the cut of date. The court directed the services to be terminated even though he had put in several years in service. It was held that the employee was aware that his appointment was subject to the outcome of the writ petition. One cannot therefore take to sympathetic view of the situation, in which the respondent candidate find himself. The cut of date by which all requirements relating to qualifications have to be made cannot be ignored in individual cases.

8. Mr. Mariaputham stressed that the judgment shows the significance and the requirement to go by the cut-off date and the same is not to be varied in individual cases. As regards the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the authorities may consider the petitioner's case as a case involving special factors and circumstances, learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner had already submitted a representation on 21.6.2002, which had been considered by the Dean Faculty and the Pro Vice-Chancellor and the decision was that, "rules ought to be followed".

9. Having noted the facts and respective contentions and submissions of the counsel for petitioner and counsel for the respondent as also the authorities relied on, let us examine whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought?

The admitted positions is that the petitioner applied in the "general category" on 22.3.2002. Understandably so as the petitioner did not suffer from any disability at that time. As per the petitioner, the accident occurred on 3.5.2002. The entrance examination was held on 26.5.2002 and the results were declared on 4.6.2002. Significantly the petitioner did not seek a change in the category till the results were declared. The change in category was sought only on 21.6.2002. It appears that change in category was sought when the petitioner realised that he was not likely to be admitted to the B.E. Course in the "general category". He thereupon pursued for change in category to attempt an admission under the physically handicapped category.

There is a complete prohibition on change of category after the receipt of completed application form as per Condition No. 2 of the 'Bulletin of Information'. The material or crucial date as per the 'Bulletin of Information' is the date of receipt of application form. On the said date, the petitioner was not eligible to apply in the category of physically handicapped. As per the dictum of the Supreme Court in Harpal Kaur Chahal's case (Supra), it would not help even if the candidate acquire the qualification or eligibility subsequently after the cut-off date. Thus the subsequent disability would not make the petitioner eligible after the date of receipt of complete application. Moreover, in this case the admission process is stated to be over. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt (Supra) has also cautioned in taking too sympathetic a view of such situations and observed that the cut-off date, by which all requirements relating to qualification and eligibility, have to be met, ought not to be ignored.

Coming lastly to the submission of counsel for the petitioner that there was power vested in the Admissions Committee and the Academic Council to recommend permitting a change in category, in special circumstances. The petitioner cannot seek a mandamus that the said power be exercised to grant an exception to the petitioner contrary to the rule. At best, he may seek that his case be considered and examined for change of category in special circumstances as an exception. It is noticed that the petitioner had made a representation on 21.6.2002 to the Vice Chancellor, Delhi University, setting out the circumstances of his case. The said representation has been duly considered by the competent authorities including the Vice Chancellor and the decision taken was that "rules ought to be followed". The authorities have thus concluded that a case for special circumstances is not made out. Moreover in the instant case, if the disability of the petitioner continues, it would be for the petitioner to apply in the handicapped category for the next academic session and take his chance in the changed category. The decision of the University authorities in not treating this case as an exceptional one in these circumstances cannot even otherwise be faulted with.

In view of the foregoing discussion, no ground is made out for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.