Ishita Goel (Minor) vs The Principal & Ors
2009 Latest Caselaw 3575 Del

*                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           W.P.(C.) No.10773/2009

%                        Date of Decision: 04.09.2009

Ishita Goel (Minor)                                           .... Petitioner
                         Through Mr.Manoj Singh, Advocate

                                   Versus

The Principal & Ors                                   .... Respondents
                         Through Mr.Mohit Gupta, 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. (ORAL)

*

The petitioner has filed this petition impugning the decision of the

respondents declining admission to the petitioner in B.Com (Hons) on

account of not obtaining 50% marks in Mathematics.

The petitioner contended categorically in the petition that

objection put forth by respondent No.2 that for admission to the B.Com

(Hons) 50% marks in the subject of Mathematics is required is contrary

to the eligibility conditions and the petitioner could not be denied

admission on this ground. The contention of the petitioner is that since

Central Admission Committee is the supreme admission committee for

all the admissions in the college and it had approved her admission

after going through the extracurricular activity committee

recommendations and the marks obtained by the petitioner in all the

subjects including Mathematics, admission of petitioner to B.Com

(Hons) could not be denied. In the circumstances, the petitioner has

prayed for a direction to respondents to give admission to the petitioner

in B.Com (Hons) first year course in the ECA category at the earliest.

Along with the petition the copy of the admission form of the

petitioner was filed, however, the copy of the eligibility condition for

admission to the course of B.Com (Hons) were not filed. The learned

counsel for the petitioner contends that the copy of the prospectus was

not given to him. The petitioner is present and she has stated that the

copy of the prospectus was given by her to Mr.Dinesh Kumar, a family

friend who had instructed the counsel and who had not given the copy

of the prospectus to the counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition was

taken up on 11th August, 2009 and on 13th August, 2009. The show

cause notice was issued to the respondents on the ground that no

eligibility condition contemplated that the candidate should have had

50% marks in the subject of Mathematics for admission to B.Com

(Hons). The copy of prospectus or eligibility conditions in the prospectus

were not filed. A copy of admission form was filed which stipulated that

the College Prospectus, 2009 should be read before filing the form. It

was contended on behalf of the petitioner that no such eligibility

condition of scoring 50% marks in Mathematics was stipulated for

Admission to B.Com (Hons).

A reply dated 1st September, 2009 has been filed. In the reply the

respondents have stipulated the eligibility conditions for admission to

B.Com (Hons). The eligibility conditions for B.Com (Hons) as detailed in

the reply are as under:-

"1. One language out of core/elective/functional Hindi or English and

2. Three best elective subjects out of Accountancy, Economics, Business Studies/Commerce/Elements of Commerce; Statistics/Business Statistics;

Maths/Business Maths, Computer Science, Informatics Practices and Entrepreneurship.

3. Minimum 50% marks in Mathematics/Business Maths."

Perusal of the eligibility conditions categorically reflects that

minimum 50% marks in Mathematics/Business Maths are required for

admission to B.Com (Hons) course. Apparently the petitioner did not file

the relevant eligibility conditions at the time of filing the writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the eligibility

conditions for admission under the sports quota and co-curricular

activities which only stipulates that not more than 5% of the total

number of seats in the first year of Under Graduate courses shall be

offered for admission on the basis of sports and co-curricular

distinction. The said provision only contemplates that the merit of the

students under the sports quota shall be different but it does not

exempt the minimum eligibility conditions for admission to a particular

course. The said provision does not lay down that the candidates

getting admission under the sports quota would not be required to

obtain 50% marks in mathematics in the qualifying examination for

admission to B.Com (Hons).

According to the learned counsel nothing is provided under the

rules and procedures for admission on the basis of sports and co-

curricular activities. Since nothing has been provided regarding the

minimum eligibility in the sports quota except that 5% seats shall be

filled under sports quota, the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the minimum eligibility condition for admission to B.Com

(Hons) course would not applicable to the petitioner cannot be accepted.

The respondents were justified in insisting for 50% marks in

Mathematics and business Maths for admission to the course of B.Com

(Hons) which eligibility condition is not fulfilled by the petitioner and

consequently it cannot be held that the admission has been denied

incorrectly to the petitioner by the respondents.

The reason given by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he

filed the petition without producing minimum eligibility conditions with

the petition as according to him such eligibility conditions are not

applicable, is not acceptable. What was contended on behalf of the

petitioner was that eligibility condition is only 45% marks in qualifying

examination and not 50% marks in the subject of mathematics in the

qualifying examination. Under rules and procedures for admission on

the basis of sports and co-curricular activities, minimum percentage of

45% in the qualifying examination is not provided. In the circumstances

it cannot be inferred that minimum marks of 50% in the subject of

Mathematics for admission to B.Com (Hons) will not be applicable for

admission under the sports category. For admission to B.Com (Hons)

minimum 45% marks in aggregate in the qualifying examination are

provided under the same eligibility conditions, a copy of which, it

appears, was not produced by the petitioner.

In the circumstances, it is apparent that the petitioner had tried

to conceal the minimum eligibility condition for admission to B.Com

(Hons). Suppression of material facts by the petitioners by itself is a

sufficient ground to decline any relief to the petitioner. A party must

approach the Court with clean hands and disclose all material facts

which may in one way or the other have direct bearing on the outcome

of the case. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands.

A person who's case is based on concealment, has no right to approach

the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the

litigation. In G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka, (1991) 3

SCC 261 the facts were not disclosed in the special leave petition and

the Court came to know the said facts from the counter affidavit filed by

the respondents. The petitioner did not file the eligibility conditions

deliberately and it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that there

is no such eligibility condition which mandates minimum marks of 50%

in mathematics in the qualifying examination to be eligible for B.Com.

(Hons) course.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed with a cost of

Rs.5000/- payable to the respondents. All the pending applications are

also disposed of. Cost to be paid within four weeks.

September 04, 2009                                       ANIL KUMAR, J.
'k'