Surya Prateek Singh vs Vice Chancellor, Guru Gobind ...
2008 Latest Caselaw 1863 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                  Date of Decision: 21.10.2008

+     W.P.(C) 6482/2008


      SURYA PRATEEK SINGH               ..... Petitioner
                   Through Mr. Amit Vohra and Jagmohan Singh
                          Advs.

                  versus


      VICE CHANCELLOR, GURU GOBIND
      SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY
      & ORS.                             ..... Respondents
                   Through Mr. G.D. Goel for GGSIPU
                           Mr. Akash Pratap for GNCTD
                           Mr.Satender Singh for Respondent
                           No.2

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

      1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?

      2. To be referred to Reporter or not?          Yes

      3. Whether the judgment should be reported     Yes
         in the Digest?



VIPIN SANGHI, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner applied for admission to the B.A. LLB (Hons) 5

years programme for the academic session 2008-2009 in the

management quota in the respondent No.2 college. In the common

entrance test conducted by the respondent University, he had

secured the rank of 1873. On 25.8.2008, the petitioner states that he

misplaced his admit card and lodged the police complaint in that

respect bearing NCR No.1335/2008. The petitioner admittedly figured

in the merit list prepared by the respondent College for admission

under the management quota. There were 16 seats to be filled under

the management quota. The petitioner states that when he

approached respondent No.2 College for admission on 27.8.2008, he

was informed that since he did not have the original admit card he

could not be granted admission. He states that he was required by

the respondent college to get the copy of the admit card verified by

the respondent University. He submits that when he returned with

the verification of his admit card by the respondent University, he was

not granted admission on the ground that he did not have the original

admit card. Instead, his seat was offered to a candidate lower in

merit than him in the management quota merit list. In these

circumstances the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the

reason for refusal to grant admission to the petitioner was

unreasonable and arbitrary, and he could not have been denied

admission on such a hyper-technical and strict interpretation of the

brochure conditions, which are merely procedural and directory.

2. The submission of the learned counsel of the respondent

College is that the respondent University mandates that at the time of

grant of admission the original admit card should be produced by the

candidate. Since the petitioner did not produce the same, he was

denied admission through he figured in the merit list of the

management quota of 16 seats. The stand of respondent No.2 College

is that in the brochure issued by the University, it is clearly stated

that the candidates seeking admission would be required to produce

the admit card of CET, 2008 in original. Even in the communication

issued to the candidates the said requirement was clearly stated. It is

submitted that the said requirement is insisted upon to ensure that a

student does not block multiple seats in different colleges, and

thereby deny admission to other students desirous of seeking

admission. If he is required to submit the original admit card at the

time of seeking admission the said practice can be stopped and the

seats can be prevented from being wasted.

3. Though the object that the said prescription seeks to achieve

i.e. to prevent multiple seats being blocked by the same candidate in

different institutions is laudable, in my view the mechanism and

measure adopted by the Respondents to achieve that objective and,

consequently, the importance that had been attached by the

respondents to the production of the original admit card, in all

situations, appears to be unreasonable. There could be varied

reasons when a candidate may not be able to produce the original

admit card, even though he may not have taken admission in one or

the other college of the University offering the course in question. In

such a situation, the result of the aforesaid prescription would be that

such a candidate would be denied admission, though being found

meritorious, only because he is not able to produce the original admit

card. A candidate should not be denied admission merely because he

may have genuinely lost his admit card or the same may have got

destroyed, if he is otherwise meritorious. Even if a person were to

misplace or loose important documents such as a passport, election

card, ration card, driving licence, mark sheets, degrees or a title

deed of a property etc. it is possible to obtain a duplicate one and the

loss of such a document does not normally lead to such drastic

consequences. Counsel for the petitioner also points out that the

brochure issued by respondent University states that a candidate

would not be issued a duplicate admit card after the holding of CET.

In such a situation, the only course open to the petitioner was to get

the copy of the admit card verified from the respondent University,

which he did. It does not stand to reason that loss of the original

Admit Card should result in such severe consequences for a candidate

and adversely affect his career prospects. The procedures that the

respondent university adopts should factor in realities of life and

should not be so rigid and hyper technical so as to defeat merit by

depriving the meritorious candidates of admission only because they

may have lost / misplaced/ accidentally destroyed the original Admit

Card. The respondent University can safeguard against a candidate

seeking multiple admission by requiring the candidate who may not

be able to produce the original admission card, to furnish a

declaration and an undertaking to say that he/she has not taken

admission on the basis of the original admit card in any other college

of the University, and that in case his/her declaration is found to be

false, his/her admission would stand cancelled. The respondent

university may also require the filing of a police complaint reporting

the loss of the Admit Card as a pre condition. The respondent

university has adequate infrastructure and database to identify

candidates who may have taken admission in another college affiliated

to the university in the same course. The aforesaid condition cannot

be accorded such sacrosance as has been done by the respondents. It

would be reasonable to construe such a condition to be directory and

capable of being adequately substituted in a reasonable and suitable

manner. In U.P. SEB v. Shiv Mohan Singh (2004) 8 SCC 402 the

Supreme Court quoted that approval from Crawford on Statutory

Construction at page 539. The said quotation reads as follows:

"271. Miscellaneous implied exceptions from the requirements of mandatory statutes, in general - Even where a statute is clearly mandatory or prohibitory, yet, in many instances, the courts will regard certain conduct beyond the prohibition of the statute through the use of various devices or principles. Most, if not all of these devices find their jurisdiction in considerations of justice. It is a well-known fact that often to enforce the law to its letter produces manifest injustice, for frequently equitable and humane considerations, and other considerations of a closely related nature, would seem to be of a sufficient calibre to excuse or justify a technical violation of the law."

4. The decision in U.P. SEB (supra) was in turn quoted along

with the aforesaid extract in Dove Investments (P) Ltd. v. Gujarat

Industrial Investment Corporation (2006) 2 SCC 619, I find

support in the view that I have taken from the aforesaid extract.

5. The petitioner has placed on record the NCR by which he has

reported the loss of the admit card. He also makes a categorical

statement that he has not taken admission in the 5 years B.A. L.L.B.

(Hons) Programme in any college of the respondent University on the

basis of the original admit card. He is willing to give a declaration

and an undertaking as aforesaid. I am, therefore of the view that the

petitioner was wrongly denied admission by the respondent college.

6. The respondent college has filed an affidavit to say that all

the 16 management quota seats stand filled. However, in the general

quota seats to be filled on the basis of the merit in CET, out of 144

seats, 7 students have not reported at the College. They have also not

filled up the examination forms for the end term examination to be

held in the month of December, 2008 which were to be filled up by

25.9.2008. Counsel for respondent No.2 further states that the 7

seats lying vacant, in any event, shall remain unfilled and unutilized

and the claim of no other candidate, more meritorious than the

petitioner, would be compromised even if the petitioner were to be

granted admission against one of the vacancies.

7. Keeping in view the peculiar facts of this case, I, therefore,

direct that the petitioner be granted admission by the respondent

College against one of the 7 seats lying vacant in the 5 years B.A. LLB

(Hons) Programme.

8. The petitioner had been granted provisional admissions

under the orders of the Court dated 10.9.2008. The petitioner is

permitted to fill up examination form for the end term examination to

be held in December, 2008, subject to his fulfilling all the other

conditions. The petitioner shall also furnish a declaration to the effect

that he has not taken admission on the basis of the lost original Admit

Card in any other college in the 5 year B.A.LLB (H) Course, and an

undertaking that in case his declaration is found to be false, his

admission shall stand cancelled and he shall accept the cancellation of

his admission. The declaration-cum-undertaking shall be executed on

non judicial stamp paper of requisite amount and be notarized by a

Notary Public.

Petition stands disposed of.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

OCTOBER 21, 2008 aj