Mridula Priyadarshani vs University Of Delhi And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 860 Del

JUDGMENT

Gita Mittal, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged a condition imposed for eligibility for seeking admission to the B.A.(pass) Course of the Non-Formal Education Cell whereby it is required that in order to be eligible for enrolment with this course, the candidate should have passed the Senior Secondary Certificate(class 12th examination) conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education from a school and examination centre (in the case of private candidates) located within the National Capital of Delhi jurisdiction or the University.

2. The undisputed facts giving rise to the present petition are noticed hereinafter. The petitioner is a resident of Delhi living in Vinod Nagar. She undertook the class 10th examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education from the Mayur Public School located behind Mother Dairy in the I.P. Extension at Delhi. Thereafter the petitioner enrolled herself for pursuing the class 12th course and examination with the National Institute of Open Schooling with its credited institution namely the Green Field Public School located at Ghaziabad, U.P.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the National Institute of Open Schooling is a government institute which functions from Delhi. The same studying material is supplied to candidates who are registered all over the country and all candidates in its institutes undertake the same examination at the same time. So far as this method of schooling is concerned, there are no formal classes held and classes which are run are only intended to be facilitators for the benefit of the student. According to Mr. R.K. Saini, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, candidates who are undertaking the class 12 course with the National Institute of Open Schooling have no option with regard to the centre from where the examination is taken. As such the petitioner, though a resident of Delhi, was allotted and had to undertake the class 12th examination from Ghaziabad.

4. The petitioner is stated to have passed the senior secondary school examination conducted by the National Institute of Open Schooling in the year 2004. It stated that the certificate of the petitioner placed on record has been issued at Delhi.

After so finishing her class 12th, the petitioner was desirous of continuing her education in the Non-Formal System of Education. Consequently, she made an application to the Non-Formal Education Cell(External Candidates) of the University of Delhi for its B.A.(Pass) Course on 30th October, 2004. Copy of the prospectus has been placed before the court and has been read extensively to contend that the petitioner was domicile in Delhi and had taken her class 12th examination from Delhi. As such the petitioner still being domiciled in Delhi was eligible and entitled to be enrolled with the Non-Formal Education Cell of the respondent no. 1 and to take the examinations which are to commence from the 26th May, 2005.

5. The petitioner has filed the writ petition feeling aggrieved by the letter dated 11th January, 2005 of the respondents requiring her to submit an attested copy of the admission ticket of class 12th examination or any other documents for verification of the Examination Centre at Delhi.

The writ petition contains the following prayers :-

"(a) A writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the case and peruse the same;

(b) A Writ of Certiorari quashing the stipualtion made/condition prescribed as a Specific Condition of eligibility for enrolment as an external candidate into B.A.(Pass)/B.Com.(Pass) course, being eligibility condition no. 2(b) (i) at page 9 of Handbook of Information 2004-2005 issued by the Non-Formal Education Cell(External Candidates), to the effect that the candidates who have passed the Senior School Certificate (Class 12) examination even though conducted by an authority established by law and situated within NCT of Delhi should have passed from a school and examination centre (in the case of private candidates) located within the National Capital of Delhi, being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and unconstitutional.

(c) A writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to accept the application form submitted by the Petitioner and give her admission/enrollment as an external candidate for B.A.(Pass) course under the system of Non-formal Education in the Non-Formal Education Cell of the University of Delhi for the academic year 2004-05.

(d) A writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the costs of this petition to the Petitioner.

(e) Any other Writ, Order or Direction which may be deemed fit and proper on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

6. The entire submissions of the petitioner rest on the argument that the respondents have incorporated a wholly arbitrary condition in the Hand Book of Information of the Non-Formal Education Cell(External Candidates) for the year 2004-2005 which has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It is stated that respondents are only concerned with the domicile of the petitioner.

7. Reliance has been placed on several orders passed by different High Courts in support of the submission that a candidate who is pursuing the senior secondary course with the National Institute of Open Schooling has no option so far as the choice of the examination centre is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment reported at JT 1992 (4) SC 292 entitled Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka and Ors. to contend that education is a fundamental right and the respondents cannot defeat such right of the petitioner by imposition of arbitrary conditions. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the pronouncement of the Apex Court reported at AIR 1978 SC 597 (para 56) entitled Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India.

8. On the other hand Ms. Beenashaw Soni, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently objected to the challenge made in the present petition. It has been submitted that knowing fully well the conditions laid down in the Hand Book of Information, the petitioner still applied for admission to the Non-Formal Education Cell even though she was not eligible for the same and as such no direction can be made for her enrollment. It is also stated that the respondents have carefully considered the matter and have provided different alternatives even for non-formal education and different eligibilities for each alternative. Candidates who have not undertaken the class 12th examination have the option of pursuing non-formal education with the School of Open Learning wherein there is no prohibition whatsoever with regard to the place of learning. The condition imposed is reasonable and is necessary keeping in view the limited number of seats and to give effect to the spirit, intendment and purpose of the course and curriculum.

9. I have given my considered thought to the submissions made before me and perused the available record. Before adverting to the submissions made, it is necessary to notice the different kind of options available to candidates who are desirous of pursuing non-formal education under the University of Delhi. The respondents have made one option available to pursue the courses with the School of Open Learning. Perusal of the prospectus of this institution shows that the only eligibility condition prescribed therein is as follows :-

"1. Admission is open to candidates from all over India.

2. Admission is also open to Indian nationals working in Indian missions abroad and also to their dependents, subject to their taking the University Examination at any of the following places :

1. Accra(Ghana), 2. Adis Ababa(Ethiopia), 3. Beijing (China), 4. Beirut (Lebanon), 5. Bon(Germany), 6. Brasilia (Brazil), 7. Buenos Aires(Argentina), 8. Cairo (Egypt), 9. Hong Kong, 10. Jakarta (Indonesia), 11. Kabul (Afghanistan), 12. Kualalumpur ( Malaysia), 13. Kuwait, 14. London(U.K.), 15. Mnila, 16. Mauritius, 17. Mexico, 18. Moscow(Russia), 19. Nairobi(Kenya), 20. Ottawa(Canada), 21. Singapore, 22, Stockholm (Sweden), 23. Sydney(Australia), 24. Tehran(Iran), 25. Tokyo(Japan), 26. Washington(U.S.A.)."

Therefore, it is noteworthy that there is no prohibition to admission on account of residence or of place of having taken the class 12th examination. A candidate is only required to produce the certificate of having passed the senior secondary school certificate examination/intermediate examination or an examination recognized as equivalent thereto.

10. The petitioner was in the knowledge of availability of this option. The Brochure of the School of Open Learning has been placed on court record by the petitioner. This school is providing what were known as correspondence courses.

11. On the other hand, in the other scheme provided for non-formal education which is conducted by the Non-Formal Education Cell (External Candidates), the Hand Book of Information provides for the following stipulations which are necessary for the adjudication of the present case :-

"(b) SPECIFIC CONDITIONS :

(i) B.A.(Pass)/B.Com.(Pass)

Persons who have passed the Senior School Certificate(Class 12) Examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi, or an examination recognized as equivalent, thereto and conducted by any other authority established at law and situated within he National Capital Territory of Delhi to which the powers of the University extend, and from a school and examination centre(in the case of private candidates) located within the National Capital of Delhi Jurisdiction of the University, shall be eligible for enrollment as an external candidate for the B.A.(Pass)/B.Com(Pass) Examination of the University."

12. Perusal of the aforestated clause shows that in order to be eligible for admission to the above courses, the candidate who has taken the senior secondary certificate examination as a private candidate has to have taken the same from a school and examination centre located within he National Capital of Delhi jurisdiction or the University.

13. The comparison of the two eligibility clauses one of the School of Open Learning and the other of the Non Formal Education Cell aforestated shows that the respondents have made a clear and considered differentiation in the eligibility conditions. I find force in the submissions on behalf of the respondents to the effect that the respondent no. 1 had given an option to candidates who had not pursued schooling or taken the class 12th examination in Delhi, to pursue their further education in the University of Delhi from the School of Open Learning.

14. It has been pointed out on behalf of the respondents that these conditions merely implement the conditions for admission to examinations which have been laid down and approved by the Academic Council and the Executive Council of the University as have been mentioned in para no. 6(ii) on page no. 325 of the Ordinance VII Chapter III of the University Calender Volume I which is to the following effect :-

"(a_' approved by the Academic Council and Executive Council of the University which stipulates that "any person who has passed the Senior School Certificate(Class 12) Examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi or an examination recognized as equivalent thereto and conducted by any other authority established by law and situated within the territorial limits to which the powers of the University extend and from as School/an Examination centre(in the case of private candidates? Located within he territorial jurisdiction of the University, shall be eligible for enrollment as an external candidate for the B.A.(Pass)/B.Com(Pass) examination of the University."

15. I find that no challenge has been laid to the provisions of Ordinance VII or any other statutory provisions by the petitioner.

16. There are only a limited number of seats and bearing in mind the prayer for admissions to the limited seats in Delhi, the respondent no. 1 has considered the matter and so prescribed the eligibility conditions.

17. In my view, the petitioner had the option of pursuing her non-formal education from the School of open Learning. I find nothing arbitrary or unreasonable in the eligibility stipulations contained in the Hand Book of Information for the Non-Formal Education Cell. The stipulations and restrictions have a direct nexus with the object sought to be achieved which is to control and regulate admissions and provide seats to candidates who are residents of Delhi and have pursued their schooling at Delhi. The requirement of being a resident in Delhi would only an additional condition.

18. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner knew this eligibility condition when she applied for admission and therefore, can also cannot be permitted to challenge the same.

19. It has also been pointed out by the respondents that the petitioner did not make available all documents necessary for processing her application. She was required to submit the documentary proof of her examination centre along with her application. The Hand Book of Information had contained a stipulation to the effect that such applications which are found incomplete in any respect in default of certificate would be summarily rejected. The petitioner submitted an incomplete application. In this behalf, the respondents have been constrained to address her a letter dated 11th January, 2005 to make good the discrepancies in her application failing which her admission could be cancelled. She did not comply with the discrepancy later dated 11th January, 2005. Even thereafter, two further reminders were addressed to her to remove the discrepancies only where after she made available the requisite information.

20. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner did not have a choice with regard to the examination centre wherefrom she undertook her examination. In view of the judgments cited before me by learned counsel for the petitioner, the same is left to the discretion of the institution. However, the petitioner did have a choice with regard to accredited institution wherefrom she took enrolment. For this reason, the argument of the learned counsel based on lack of choice for chosing her centre is devoid of merit.

21. I may also notice the argument made by learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the restriction of admission to those persons who have undertaken the examination of the National Institute of Open Schooling at Delhi is wholly misconceived in view of the fact that the course content as well as the examination of all candidates who are undertaking the examination is the same all over the country.

In my view, this submission also does not further the case of the petitioner at all. The position with regard to the candidates who have taken or are taking the secondary school examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education is also the same. However, the universities are permitted to impose such eligibility conditions which are deemed necessary. The Non-Formal Education Cell of the University of Delhi has the eligibility conditions after due application of mind. Effect has been given to the statutory scheme contained in Ordinance VII of the University Calender.

For all the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the petition which is hereby dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.