Sushant Ray vs Dean And Head, Faculty Of Law, ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 2825 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                      Writ Petition (Civil) No.10318/2009

%                         Date of Decision: 24.07.2009

Sushant Ray                                                  .... Petitioner

                         Through Mr.B.K.Sinha, Advocate.

                                   Versus

Dean and Head, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi         .... Respondent

                         Through Mr.Mohinder J.S.Rupal, Advocate.
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.

*

The petitioner seeks admission to LLB course at Law Centre-II,

ARSD College, New Delhi.

The petitioner contended that he secured 711 rank in the LLB

entrance test, 2009 and he attended the counseling session on 10th

June, 2009.

It is contended that on the date of counseling he could not

deposit the fees due to personal family problems and went out of town

and the petitioner could not come back for quite sometime, however, he

sent an email on 28th June, 2009 to the respondent. It is asserted that

on 10th July, 2009 the petitioner went to deposit the fees which was not

accepted and he has been denied an opportunity for admission to the

LLB course.

The bulletin of information for admission to the courses of

Faculty of Law, University of Delhi stipulates the dates for counseling

and date for payment of fees. The candidates who appeared for

counseling on 10th June, 2009 could pay the fees on 11th, 12th & 15th

June, 2009. It is categorically stipulated in the bulletin of information

that the vacant seats under any category shall be filled up at 10 AM on

Monday 29th June, 2009 from amongst the candidates of the concerned

category as per merit. Admittedly the fees was not paid by 15th June,

2009 and the seat for the petitioner could not be kept beyond that time.

The learned counsel for the respondent who appears pursuant to

an advance notice has produced a letter dated 23rd July, 2009 from the

Dean, Faculty of Law, Delhi that the petitioner had come for counseling

on 10th June, 2009 and he had filled up the option and admission form

for admission to LLB course, 2009-2010 which was verified on 10th

June, 2009 itself. He was offered admission on that day and had time to

deposit the fee till 15th June, 2009. Since he did not do so his seat, in

accordance with the bulletin of information, was offered to other

candidates. It is further asserted that all seats which were available as

on 29th June, 2009 have been filled up and no admission has been

made after that date. It is also contended that there are number of other

candidates who are pestering now for admission but it has not been

acceded to because the admission has been closed after filling up all the

seats and no seat is available. It is also stated that the course of LLB

has already started on 21st July, 2009 and admission cannot be

reopened after all the seats have been filled.

The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any right

of the petitioner entitling him to deposit the fees after 15th June, 2009

which was the last date for payment of fees. In any case the petitioner

ought to have deposited the fees before 29th June, 2009, the next date

for counseling. For the reasons stated by the petitioner, one seat could

not be kept vacant for the petitioner, as had the petitioner not deposited

the fees even after 29th June, 2009, the same would have gone waste. In

any case the entire admission process cannot be modified and varied on

account of such individual difficulties as has been raised by the

petitioner as consideration of such pleas and keeping the seats open for

such candidates may have a cascading effect on the entire process of

admission which is not permissible and in any case the Courts do not

have to interfere with such policy decisions unless the action and the

acts of the respondents are ex facie arbitrary and illegal. In the facts

and circumstances, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief

and he cannot be admitted to LLB course of the respondent.

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, parties are left

to bear their own cost.

July 24, 2009                                           ANIL KUMAR, J.
'k'