Delhi High Court
Ruchi Agarwal vs Ministry Of Human Resources & ... on 13 August, 2009
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No.10142/2009
% Date of Decision: 13.08.2009
Ruchi Agarwal .... Petitioner
Through Mr.Vijay Kumar, Advocate
Versus
Ministry of Human Resources & Development & .... Respondents
Ors.
Through Mr.M.P.Singh, Advocate for the
respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Ms.Jinu, Advocate for the respondent
No.3.
Mr.Amit Bansal, Advocate for the
respondent No.4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
1. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No.4, Shaheed
Sukhdev College of Business Studies to admit her to the course of
Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA). The petitioner had applied
for course of BBA on 29th April, 2009 and appeared in the entrance
examination by roll No.19574 on 7th June, 2009.
2. The bulletin of information for admission to the course of BBA
detailed the eligibility conditions and the selection process. After the
entrance exam the list of successful candidates in the written test had
to be displayed on 17th June, 2009 at SSCBS College notice board and
on the college website. Based on the performance in the written
examination shortlisted candidates were liable to appear for group
discussion and interview and on the day of interview the candidates
were liable to submit the confirmed result of the qualifying exam and
proof of other eligibility requirements. The bulletin of information
categorically stipulated that in case, the candidate will fail to produce
the result of qualifying exam and proof of other eligibility requirements,
such a candidate will lose claim to admission.
3. To be eligible for interview, the candidate, therefore, had to
produce original certificates including Class 10 certificate as evidence of
date of birth, marks statement of Class 12 and category certificate (for
reserved category).
4. The plea of the petitioner is that in the entrance examination
petitioner was placed at serial No.158 and pursuant to that when she
appeared for group discussion and interview she was not allowed to
participate on the ground that she did not have "non creamy layer
certificate".
5. The petitioner contended that on 27th June, 2009 Joint Dean
Student Welfare had permitted petitioner to appear on provisional basis
subject to her furnishing OBC certificate and non creamy layer
certificate on 29th June, 2009. On 29th June, 2009 she wanted to
produce the non creamy layer certificate till 5 PM, however, that was
not allowed and the petitioner therefore, could not participate in group
discussion and interview and consequently she has been denied
admission. The petitioner, therefore, complained to the Vice Chancellor
and after failing to take admission in BBA at SSCBS College, she has
filed the present petition.
6. The petition is contested by the respondent No.4 and an affidavit
of Dr. (Mrs.) Poonam Verma, Principal has been filed. The respondent
No.4 has asserted that no fundamental right of the petitioner has been
violated and the respondent acted in accordance with the rules and
regulations of admission to the Bachelor of Business Administration. It
is contended that the petitioner does not have a vested right to claim
admission in the respondent college de hors its rules and regulations
and practice. Reliance was placed by the respondent No.4 on the
stipulation in the bulletin of information that if a candidate will not
submit the proof of eligibility requirement, such a candidate will lose
claim to admission. The relevant condition is reproduced here for the
sake of reference:-
"On the day of the interview the candidates must submit
the confirmed result of the qualifying exam and proof of
other eligibility requirements, failing which the candidate
will lose claim to admission."
7. The respondent No.4 further asserted that since the petitioner
failed to produce `non creamy layer' certificate on 29th June, 2009
which was an essential eligibility condition, she was not allowed to
participate in the interview and group discussion and thereafter she has
not been admitted. The respondent No.4 also reiterated that for the
academic year 2009-2010 written exam was held on 7th June, 2009 and
the result was declared on 17th June, 2009 and on the basis of the
result of written examination, a list of shortlisted candidates was
prepared which had four times the candidates than the number of seats
which were offered. The candidates were directed to appear for group
discussion and interview, however, only those candidates who had with
them the eligibility certificates were allowed to participate in group
discussion and the interview.
8. The plea of the respondent NO.4 is that since the petitioner had
applied under the category of OBC-Non Creamy Layer she was liable to
produce the original certificate at the time of group discussion and
interview. On 27th June, 2009 the petitioner had obtained the
permission from the Joint Dean, Student Welfare which was granted
according to the request of the petitioner till Monday morning 10.30
AM, 29th June, 2009. The petitioner did not produce the OBC certificate
of „non creamy layer‟. Even on Monday morning and sought more time
till 5 PM which was not acceded to and the petitioner was not allowed to
participate in group discussion and interview and consequently has not
been given admission.
9. The writ petition is also contested by the respondent No.4 on the
ground that according to the admission schedule the admission process
was completed for the reserved category on 5th July, 2009 and final
selection list was declared and the vacant seats of the OBC category
were transferred to the other eligible candidates on 10th July, 2009 and
those have been filled up by the respondent college and, therefore, there
are no seats now and consequently the petitioner is not entitled for
admission to the said BBA course.
10. Regarding the permission granted by Joint Dean Student Welfare
it is contended that it was completely misplaced and the requirement of
providing OBC -non creamy layer certificate was mandatory and could
not be waived off and, therefore, the petitioner could not be allowed to
appear provisionally for group discussion and interview. The learned
counsel for the respondent No.4 has also relied on Ashok Kumar vs.
UOI, (2008) 6 SCC 1 holding that reservation for OBC shall not include
the creamy layer. The learned counsel for the respondent has also relied
on Sangeeta Sharma v. University of Delhi and Ors, 57(1995) DLT 80
holding that whoever fails to submit the documents within the
stipulated time will necessarily have to be ignored in the matter and in
that process if a candidate with lesser marks gets admitted, the former
cannot complain as for the former, it is the penalty for default and for
the latter it is the prize for vigil.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also
perused the writ petition, counter affidavits and the documents filed by
the parties. This is not disputed that petitioner had applied in the
reserved category of OBC. To get admission in the reserved category of
OBC petitioner also had to establish that she does not belong to
`creamy layer' and consequently she was liable to produce a certificate
regarding `non creamy layer'.
12. This has not been disputed and cannot be disputed by the
petitioner that the bulletin of information categorically stipulated that
on the day of interview, the petitioner had to submit the result of
qualifying exam and proof of other eligibility requirement which
included Class 10 certificate as evidence of date of birth, marks
statement of Class 12 and category certificate which was the OBC
certificate along with the stipulation that the petitioner did not belong
to `creamy layer'. This also cannot be denied that the petitioner could
not produce the certificate at the time of group discussion and
interview. Therefore, the action of the respondent not to permit the
petitioner for group discussion and interview cannot be faulted. Another
plea of the petitioner is that the Joint Dean Student Welfare had
provisionally granted permission to the petitioner to appear without
OBC certificate and non creamy layer certificate. The petitioner,
however, has failed to establish that the Joint Dean Student Welfare
could waive off the requirement for admission to the course of BBA. In
any case perusal of the record reveals that even petitioner had sought
time to produce OBC and non creamy layer certificate on 27th June,
2009 uptil 10.30 AM on 29th June, 2009. From the letter dated 29th
June, 2009 written to the Vice Chancellor, a copy of which is annexed
as Annexure D by the petitioner, it is also apparent that the petitioner
could not produce this OBC and non creamy layer certificates even till
10.30 AM on 29th June, 2009 as the petitioner had again sought time
till 5 PM. The respondents have categorically asserted that the Joint
Dean Student Welfare could not have waived the mandatory
requirement of production of eligibility certificate at the time of
interview and group discussion. From the documents produced and the
relevant rules it is apparent that the Joint Dean Student Welfare did
not have such power to waive off the mandatory condition. In any case
even that permission which was granted by Joint Dean Student Welfare
had expired on 29th June, 2009 in the morning at 10.30 AM by which
time the petitioner had not been able to produce his original `non
creamy layer' certificate. The petitioner has also not disclosed the
cogent reason for non production of non creamy layer certificate. The
petitoner had applied for admission to the course of BBA on 24th April,
2009. When the petitioner had applied for non cream layer certificate
has not been disclosed. In the circumstances, the act of the respondent
in not permitting the petitioner to participate in the group discussion
and interview on account of non production of eligibility certificate in
accordance with the selection process as stipulated in the bulletin of
information which has been held to be mandatory cannot be faulted.
13. A Division Bench of this Court while considering similar pleas
regarding admission to the LLB course and non production of eligibility
documents had held that if admission list cannot be prepared without
the eligibility documents and if an deadline or outer limit as prescribed
for submission of documents to prove eligibility, which is essential for
determining whether one should be included in the admission list or
not, then it cannot be left to the convenience of each candidate
otherwise chaos and confusion will be the result. In this case according
to the bulletin of information only a graduate or post graduate with at
least 50% marks or equivalent grade point in aggregate was eligible to
appear in the entrance test. A candidate seeking admission should have
also completed 20 years of age by a particular date stipulated in the
bulletin of information. The eligibility document according to the
bulletin of information for admission to LLB course had to be submitted
within one week from the commencement of test result. In these
circumstances, the pleas of the candidates who had not submitted the
eligibility documents within one week were held to be not eligible for
admission to the LLB course despite passing the entrance examination.
14. The respondents have also categorically stated in an affidavit that
on 5th July, 2009 the admission in the reserved category had been
completed and the vacant seats in the reserved category had been
transferred to other categories and the admission process has been
completed. Consequently, it is not possible to admit the petitioner even
if for some reason she is held to be eligible.
15. The respondents have also filed an additional affidavit contending
that the petitioner is not entitled for admitting in OBC quota as she
does not belong to one of the castes included in the central list of other
backward classes and according to the caste certificate dated 14th June,
2007 she is eligible to avail benefits only in the State of Bihar and not
the Central Government. In the circumstances, it is contended that the
petitioner does not have vested right to claim admission in the reserved
category.
16. As the petitioner had not submitted the requisite certificate at the
time of group discussion and interview and, therefore, it has to be held
that she was not eligible for admission. The petitioner is also not eligible
for admission to Delhi as the OBC certificate stipulates that this is valid
only in the State of Bihar.
17. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner is not entitled for the
relief claimed and, therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. The parties
are, however, left to bear their own cost.
August 13, 2009 ANIL KUMAR, J.
„k‟
