Abhishek Chandran vs Shri Ram College Of Commerce & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 4721 Del

34.
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Judgment Delivered on: 19.11.2009

+     W.P.(C) 10845/2009

ABHISHEK CHANDRAN                                     ..... Petitioner
              Through :       Mr. S.D. Salwan, Adv.
                     versus
SHRI RAM COLLEGE OF COMMERCE & ORS.              ..... Respondents
               Through : Mr.Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pawan
                         Kumar Agarwal, Advs. for respondents
                         No.1 and 2.
                         Mr. M.J.S. Rupal, Adv. respondent
                         no.3/University.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

         1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
            see the judgment?
         2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
         3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

1. By way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction for grant of

admission in the graduate course of Bachelor of Commerce

(Hons.) / Bachelor of Arts (Hons.) Economics in the session

2009-2010.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner applied to

respondent no.1, Shri Ram College of Commerce, in the Sports

Quota for admission in B.Com (Hons.) / B.A. (Hons.) Economics

for the session 2008-2009. The petitioner had secured 79.95

percent marks in the CBSE 12th Class examination. Petitioner is

a football player, having outstanding credentials. The football

Experts Committee appointed by respondent no.1 - College

conducted trials on 17.06.2008.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was selected after

selection trial for admission under Sports Quota in the B.Com

(Hons.) / B.A. (Hons.) Economics course offered by respondent

no.1 - College in the order of merit as confirmed by

respondents no.1 and 2, who were experts and who had

selected the students on the merits of their performance. The

petitioner has alleged that Ms. Kuljit Kaur, Convener of the

Sports Committee, respondent no.2, in collusion with some

other members of the Sports Committee took out another list,

thus, replacing the name of the petitioner in the second list and

granted admission to two other candidates. While one of the

candidates was below the petitioner in the order of merit, the

second candidate had not even been recommended or short

listed by the experts on 17.06.2008.

4. Mr. S.D. Salwan, learned counsel for the petitioner, thus,

contends that respondent no.1 falsified/manipulated the merit

list with mala fide intentions and motives, thereby denying

admission to the petitioner. As the petitioner did not get a

satisfactory answer from the college, his father made an

application under the Right to Information Act and from the

information received, the petitioner learnt that respondent no.1

- college had constituted a Sports Committee for grant of

admission under the Sports Quota on the basis of the

recommendation of the experts. Counsel further contends that

the Convener of the Sports Committee, respondent no.2, had no

credential in the sport of football and hence had no jurisdiction

or authority to change the list recommended by the experts.

Counsel also contends that the constitution of the Sport

Committee was itself against the Delhi University guidelines

since some of the members of the sports committee were either

not qualified or did not have the requisite experience in the

respective game for which selection was carried out.

5. As the petitioner was not considered for admission in

respondent no.1 - college, he sought admission in another

college in the Delhi University for the session 2008-2009. After

the admissions were closed, the petitioner on receipt of

information under the Right to Information Act filed the present

petition. In short, the submission of learned counsel for the

petitioner is that despite being eligible, since the petitioner was

not granted admission by respondent no.1 - college for the

Academic Session 2008-2009, the petitioner should be granted

admission in the Graduation Course of B.Com (Hons.) / B.A.

(Hons.) Economics for the Academic Session 2009-2010 under

the Sports Quota.

6. Present petition has been opposed by senior counsel for

respondents no.1 and 2 on the ground that the present petition

is highly belated and pertains to the admission for the academic

session 2008-2009 for which admissions already stand closed in

the year 2008. Senior counsel further submits that petitioner is

not entitled to seek admission in the current academic cession

i.e. 2009-2010 on the basis of an application submitted by him

for admission in the last academic session 2008-2009 in the

first year B. Com (Hons.) / B.A. (Hons) courses of study under

the Sports Quota in respondent no.1 college.

7. It has been strongly urged before this Court by learned senior

counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 that petitioner has

questioned the admissions granted to Sh. Sunny and Sh.

Ashutosh Tandon, however, the said persons have not been

impleaded as parties to the writ petition. It has been

vehemently submitted by learned senior counsel for

respondents no.1 and 2 that respondent no.1 college had

considered the application of the petitioner under sports quota

in the academic session 2008-2009 and proper procedure was

followed. Further the allegations made are false and the

admissions made were purely on the basis of the sports

credentials and field trials of the students.

8. Learned senior counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 has

vehemently denied the averments made in the writ petition. It

is submitted by senior counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 that

petitioner was not considered in the sports quota for the

previous session 2008-2009 as respondent no.1 - college had

selected students on the basis of the position at which they

played on the field. The college selected a "defender, forward,

half & forward"; and since the "defender, and half & forward" of

the first list did not join the college, the college substituted the

names of the persons next available that is a "defender; half &

forward; and half". The justification sought to be rendered in

Court is that petitioner played as a "half" and since the two

persons who had opted out for the first category were

"defender and half & forward", they were replaced by the

players who played at that position. What the respondent has

not been able to justify why a student, namely, Sunny, was

granted admission on the Sports Quota while his name did not

figure either in the merit list or the waiting list.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent - University has opposed

this petition on the ground that no fresh admission can be

granted after 15.09.2009 for the academic session 2009-2010.

Counsel for the respondent University further submits that the

present petition suffers from delay and laches. Counsel also

submits that the petitioner had applied under the sports quota

in the previous academic session 2008-2009 and the admission

process for the academic session 2008-2009 and also the

current academic session 2009-2010 is over. Counsel also

submits that the petitioner has taken admission in

Venkateshwar College last year. Counsel next submits that the

letters sent by the father of the petitioner dated 20.10.2008

and 03.12.2008 to the Vice-Chancellor were duly replied vide

letter dated 31.12.2008 stating therein that the case of the

petitioner was examined at the appropriate level and it was

found that there was no substance in the complaint.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Grievance of

the petitioner pertains to the admission for the academic

year 2008 - 2009. Petitioner was not granted admission.

Thereafter the petitioner has joined Sh. Venkateshwar

College. The admissions for the years 2008 - 2009 and 2009

- 2010 stand closed. Petitioner did not apply in the sports quota

for the academic session 2009 - 2010 while in the present

petition a prayer has been made for grant of

admission in the academic session 2009 - 2010 under the

spots quota. In the absence of any application having been

made by the petitioner for seeking admission for the academic

session 2009-2010 under the sports quota, no relief can be

granted to the petitioner. The petitioner has secured 79.75%,

which is far below the last student who was granted admission

in the General Category, who had secured about 90%.

Accordingly, the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage

for admission under the sports quota for the academic session

2009-2010. The University, is however, directed to issue proper

guidelines and ensure that the students, who are granted

admission under the sports quota, are strictly as per the merit

and as per the University guidelines.

11. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

November 19, 2009 'msr'