Abhishek Saini vs University Of Delhi & Anr.
2009 Latest Caselaw 3166 Del

*                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          Writ Petition (Civil) No.10257/2009

%                             Date of Decision: 13.08.2009

Abhishek Saini                                                   .... Petitioner
                             Through Mr.Anil Karnwal, Advocate

                                       Versus

University of Delhi & Anr.                           .... Respondents
                      Through Ms.Jinu, Advocate for the respondent
                              No.1.
                              Mr.Amit Bansal, Advocate for the
                              respondent No.2.

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.2, Shaheed

Sukhdev College of Business Studies to admit him to the course of

Bachelor of Business Studies (BBS). The petitioner had applied for

course of BBS and appeared in the entrance examination by roll

No.10619 on 7th June, 2009.

2. The bulletin of information for admission to the course of BBS

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 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 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.13 and pursuant to that when he

appeared for group discussion and interview he was not allowed to

participate as he did not have the "OBC Caste Certificate".

5. The petitioner contended that he was able to get the OBC

certificate on 2nd July, 2009, however, he has not been allowed to

appear in group discussions and interview and has also been denied

admission. The petitioners also relied on a news item in the Nav Bharat

Times on certificate related problems of OBC candidates.

6. The petition is contested by the respondent No.2 and affidavit of

Dr. (Mrs.) Poonam Verma, Principal has been filed. The respondent No.2

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 Studies. 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.2 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

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.2 further asserted that since the petitioner

failed to produce the OBC certificate which was an essential eligibility

condition, he was not allowed to participate in the interview and group

discussion and thereafter, he has not been admitted. The respondent

No.2 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 exam a list of shortlisted

candidates was prepared which had four times the number of seats

which were offered. The candidates were directed to appear for group

discussion and interview from June 19th June,2009, 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.2 is that since the petitioner had

not produced the eligibility certificate of OBC he was not allowed to

participate in group discussion and interview on 26th June, 2009. The

respondents contended that the petitioner failed to produce even the

caste certificate issued to his parents in support of his claim or the

proof that he had applied for issuance of caste certificate in his name.

According to respondents they have followed the policy consistently in

not permitting the students who had not produced the eligibility

certificates.

9. The respondents also asserted that bulletin of information was

put up for sale from 13th April, 2009 which clearly stipulated the

requirement of caste certificate for admission in reserved category. He

petitioner, however, did not make any efforts to obtain the caste

certificate expeditiously as the petitioner applied for the same before the

Divisional Magistrate on 5th June, 2009 only.

10. The writ petition is also contested 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 BBS

course.

11. The learned counsel for the respondents 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 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.

12. 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 has applied in the

reserved category of OBC. To get admission in the reserved category of

OBC petitioner he was liable to produce a certificate that be belongs to

OBC category. 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. 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 respondents not to permit the petitioner for

group discussion and interview cannot be faulted. The petitioner has

also failed to explain as to why he applied for the OBC certificate not

before 5th June, 2009 when the bulletin of information was put up for

sale from 13th April, 2009 which clearly stipulated the requirement of

caste certificate for admission in reserved category. In the

circumstances, the act of the respondents 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 their 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 now

even if for some reason he is held to be eligible.

15. As the petitioner had not submitted the OBC certificate at the

time of group discussion and interview and, therefore, it has been held

that he is not eligible for admission. 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‟