Sh. Vikas Happa vs University Of Delhi And Anr.
2005 Latest Caselaw 329 Del

JUDGMENT

Gita Mittal, J.

1. By way of this writ petition the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents directing them to permit the petitioner to shift from the B.Sc (Hon) Zoology Course to B.Sc.(Hon) Bio Chemistry course in the same institution. The facts giving rise to the present petition briefly stated are that the petitioner passed his 12th class senior secondary examination in the year 2004 securing 72.4% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology which were necessary for admission to both Zoology and Bio Chemistry. The petitioner applied for admission to the Delhi University and was allocated a seat in the B.Sc (Honors Zoology) Course run by the Deshbandhu College arrayed as respondent no. 2 herein.

2. According to the petitioner he was not aware of certain benefits awarded by the Government of India through the Ministry of Human Resources and Development. Vide a Circular bearing no. F 10-1/2003-Dest (U) dated 5th December, 2003 certain concessions for wards of Kashmiri migrants in the matters of their admission to educational institutes in other parts of the country during the academic session 2004-2005 were granted. Amongst the concessions granted therein, the Kashmiri migrant was entitled to relaxation in cut-off percentage up to 10% subject to the minimum eligibility requirement as well as increase in intake capacity up to 5% course wise.

3. The petitioner submits that he is a ward of Kashmiri migrant and his father has been given identify card by the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, copy whereof has been placed on record. The petitioner has submitted that as he was not aware of this concession to which he was entitled and as such had not availed of the same. In these circumstances as the minimum percentage of marks to which admission was given in the course of B.Sc (Honors Bio Chemistry) was 81% against the 72.4% secured by the petitioner, he did not secure admission to this course. Instead he had to take admission in a course i.e. B.Sc (Hons) Zoology in which he had no interest.

4. The petitioner submits that being a Kashmiri migrant, as per the circular of the Government of India, he was entitled to a concession of 10% in the cut-off and consequently was entitled to admission in the B.Sc (Hons) Bio Chemistry course as he would be above the cut-off figure of percentage for admissions if he was given the relaxation in the percentage.

The petitioner submits that the number of seats available in B.Sc.(Hons) (Bio Chemistry) in the respondent no. 2 as per the bulletin of information, is only 20 seats. Upon giving benefit of the prescribed increase in the intake capacity up to 5%, 23 seats would be available for admissions. According to the petitioner he meets the eligibility criteria for admission to the Bio Chemistry course and further that securing admission to the migrants in terms of the Government directive does not in any way impinge upon the seat availability or course allocation to the other general category candidates.

5. It is therefore contended on behalf of the petitioner that he filed an application seeking a shift from the Zoology course to the Bio Chemistry Course. According to the petitioner he made an application to the respondent no. 2 and thereafter to the respondent no. 1 as well on the 2nd November, 2004 and 9th November, 2004. It is submitted that as no reply was forthcoming nor any orders made on his application were conveyed to the petitioner, he was compelled to seek relief from this Hon'ble Court in the present writ petition.

6. The respondent no. 2 has filed its counter affidavit controverting the allegations made in the writ petition and contending that the petitioner cannot take advantage of his own wrongs. According to the respondents, the petitioner is guilty of not complying with the rules and regulations laid down by the Ministry of Human Resources and Development under the scheme for Kashmiri migrants. It is pointed out the respondent no. 1 released a press note in July, 2004 informing students who were Kashmiri migrants in various schools informing them about the available concessions. It is pointed out that these concessions were already in existence even in the year 2003. Vide the press release published on 6th July, 2004, the respondent no. 1 specifically notified the eligible candidates to make applications for registering wards of Kashmiri migrants for admission to various courses for the session 2004-2005. As per the schedule notified, the application forms were distributed from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. on 8th, 9th and 10th July, 2004. A central procedure for effecting the admissions was conducted by the respondent no. 1. All application forms received from the Academic Branch I, were to be submitted to the respondent no. 1 directly. The allotment of courses and colleges was all undertaken by the respondent no. 1. The date notified for this purpose was the 13th July, 2004 by 1 p.m. It is further pointed out that it was the respondent no. 1 alone which issued provisional admission slips after verification of the candidates on 13th July, 2004 after 3 p.m. Thereafter, the registration of the forms together with original certificates including proof of migrant status were accepted.

7. According to the respondents, all admissions to science courses are centralised and that the course and college allocation is effected by the University - respondent no. 1 above. The candidates could be admitted by colleges only on the issuance of the provisional admission slips by the Delhi University. The petitioner was also granted admission by respondent no. 2 against such admission slip given to him by respondent no. 1. It has been pointed out that respondent no. 2 could not consider any application other than the requisite provisional admission slip issued by the respondent no. 1 for the purposes of admissions and that the respondent no. 2 had no authority or jurisdiction to change the course being pursued or allotted to a candidate to some other course for which the University respondent no. 1 had not issued the provisional admission slip.

Instances have cited where provisional admission slips were issued by the respondent no. 2 to Kashmiri migrants on 13th July, 2004.

8. According to the respondents, the writ petition is highly belated and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. It has been pointed out that the petitioner attended barely one or two classes/lectures from July, 2004 and the respondent no. 2 college. According to the respondents, the petitioner had even applied for withdrawal of his original documents/certificates through an application dated 30th July, 2004. Such application was also signed by the petitioner's father and it was undertaken by them to return the certificates by 4th August, 2004.

It was stipulated therein that if the candidate fails to return such original documents having taken them back, his admission was liable to be cancelled. The respondents have submitted that in the aforestated facts it appeared as if the petitioner was pursuing some other course. The respondents have also commented that the petitioner had never claimed that he was a Kashmiri migrant even in the application form submitted by him for admission to the course.

9. I have considered the material placed before me and given my anxious thought to the submissions made on behalf of the parties. The respondents have published public notices placing before the public at large that the Kashmiri migrants are treated separately for the purposes of admission of various courses of Science, Arts, Social Sciences, Commerce and Maths. Copy of one such notice has been placed on record and has been perused by me. The petitioner cannot be heard to contend that despite the public notice having been published in newspapers, the petitioner was not aware of the special status of Kashmiri migrants or of the benefits/concessions available to them. The respondents have also placed on the record a copy of a letter dated 5th July, 2004 addressed by the respondent no. 1 to all colleges in Delhi informing the addressee as to the dates as well as extension in the date of admission relaxation in the cut-off percentage etc. The respondent no. 1, through its Registrar, also informed the public that registration would be conducted from 8th to 10th July, 2004 and that the Deputy Registrar-Academics would send the names of candidates for admission to the institutions/colleges on 13th July, 2004 after 3 p.m. to enable students to complete formalities before commencement of classes on 16th July, 2004. The respondent also published a schedule of dates for registration of wards of Kashmiri migrants for admission to various undergraduate courses in Science, Arts, Maths etc and pursuant thereto processed the applications received and issued provisional admission slips for the same on the 5th July, 2004. Certificates which were required to be submitted were also detailed in this application.

10. It is noteworthy that several eligible candidates took advantage of the special status given to Kashmiri migrants and were granted admissions in their desired courses. Two such instances have been placed on record by the respondents.

The principle ground of defense to the writ petition is based on the assertions that all candidates who were seeking entitlement under the Kashmiri migrant quota had endorsed their such status being a Kashmiri migrant on the application forms itself seeking admission to the University itself. Copy of one such admission form relating to another student of the respondent no. 1 has been placed on record. Perusal of the form shows that against the claim of "Remarks", it has been clearly set out that the candidate was a Kashmiri migrant.

As against this, the petitioner on 30th July, 2004 did not make any such remark on his application. Perusal of the application form submitted by the petitioner for admission to the respondent no. 2 shows that the petitioner has not disclosed his status as the Kashmiri migrant nor claimed any concession thereon when he was admitted on the 7th July, 2004.

11. The petitioner appears to have withdrawn all his original documents necessary for confirmation of the admission by the respondent no. 2. The reasons given on his application for withdrawal of such originals is on the purported ground of registration in employment exchange and admission for computer course at NIIT. On the application form, the petitioner had given the following undertaking :-

" UNDERTAKING

(a) I have cleared all my college dues and returned all College and University property in my possession.

(b) I hereby undertake to return the originals to the college office by 4th August 2004 barring which my admission is liable to be cancelled and no claim of refund of fees will be made in case I do not return the originals to the college office by the specified date.

Sd/-

Signature of Students

Sd/-

Father's Signature

Date 30/7/04"

This undertaking was signed by not only the petitioner but also counter signed by his father.

12. The course to which the petitioner was admitted was a science discipline and necessarily entailed theory and practical classes. In this view of the matter, the conduct of the petitioner suggests that he appears to have had no intention whatsoever of continuing to pursue any course with the respondent no. 2. The course commenced in July, 2004.

13. The Apex Court has repeatedly cautioned courts with regard to interference with exercise of discretion by the competent expert authorities in matters relating to academics. The academic session of the present course would be nearing its end. In this view of the matter, even if the petitioner was granted admission to the course at this highly belated stage, the petitioner would not be able to meet the requisite academic discipline which is required to be enforced and would not be able to attain the necessary prescribed percentage of attendance in the course.

14. There is yet another reason as to why the petition cannot be granted. The allocation of seats and courses is effected by the respondent no. 1. The original admissions had been made only upon the provisional slips having been issued by the respondent no. 1. The petitioner approached the respondent no. 2 for processing of his application instead of making the representation in this behalf to the respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 2 had no authority or jurisdiction to grant admission or permit change of the course.

For all the foregoing reasons the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted. The respondents have issued public notices which were circulated. Several candidates made applications pursuant thereto. The petitioner cannot be heard to contend that he was not aware of such notices which were published and circulated by the respondent no. 1.

In this view of the matter there is no merit in the petition which is hereby dismissed.