Delhi High Court
University Of Delhi & Ors. vs Anoop Prakash Awasthi on 26 May, 2009
Author: Ajit Prakash Shah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA No. 248/2009 & CM Nos. 7712-13/2009
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal,
Advocate.
versus
ANOOP PRAKASH AWASTHI ..... Respondent
Through: Respondent in person.
AND
+ LPA No. 241/2009 & CM Nos. 7600-02/2009
ANOOP PRAKASH AWASTHI ..... Appellant
Through: Appellant in person.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
ORDER
% 26.05.2009
1. Since both these appeals arise out of the judgment dated 27th
April, 2009 passed by the learned single Judge, we are disposing of
the same by this common order.
2. As per the appellant he was a student of LL.B. First Year in the
Campus Law Centre. He claimed that even though he ranked
sufficiently high, and had applied for accommodation in University's
hostels, yet, was not selected. As per the appellant, though there
were seats available, the law students had not been given their full
entitlement for the quota. The appellant continued to avail of the
Hostel accommodation under interim orders of the Writ Court.
3. The University in its counter-affidavit submitted that no
student ranking below the appellant, or less merited than him, was
admitted to any of the Hostel. The learned single Judge after
discussing the rival contentions concluded that the University had
acted in an arbitrary manner in denying admission to the appellant.
The learned single Judge took note of the fact that as per the rules, it
was clear that admission to the Hostel was on a year wise bases.
Further the rules clearly state that if a student fails to take re-
admission within ten days after declaration of his result or the due
date, whichever is later, he will be charged Rs.5/- per day as late
admission fee and after the expiry of one month from the due date of
declaration of results, he will forfeit his right to re-admission and will
be evicted.
4. Thus as per the rules, the eligibility or entitlement of each
student, once selected, to continue in the Hostel, is conditional upon
whether he applies for re-admission and a time limit is prescribed for
this purpose. If the student does not apply, he forfeits his admission,
and is liable to eviction. The right is, therefore, not a "vested" or an
unqualified one. The appellant did not apparently apply for
admission, at any time during the second year. The Hostel had also
stated that he could so apply. The learned single Judge rightly held
that the appellant's construction of the rule about unqualified right of
those students selected and allotted a seat could not be accepted. A
notice inviting applications from all LL.B. students was issued and
the appellant consciously risked not applying. The learned single
Judge correctly concluded that if the appellant had made an
application, it would have shown the relative merits of the parties.
The appellant's contention that a person who was having a hostel
accommodation had right to continue in the second year as a hostel
inmate automatically was clearly contrary to the rules. The
assumption was not borne out by the rules. As a result the hostel
allotted one seat to Rajat Mor. The learned single judge rightly held
that these intervening circumstances deter the court from granting
the relief of direction to allot a seat to the appellant and resultantly,
the relief sought for by the appellant was rejected.
5. We see no infirmity in the findings of the learned single Judge.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed. However, in the interest of
justice, appellant is given four week's time to vacate the hostel
premises which he is occupying. The cost imposed on the Delhi
University is waived. With these observations, both the appeals
stand disposed of and all pending applications stand disposed of as
well.
CHIEF JUSTICE
NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J.
MAY 26, 2009
sb
