Shri Ankit Gautam vs State (Govt Of Nct, Delhi) And ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 3675 Del

*                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                             W.P.(C.) No.10751/2009

%                          Date of Decision: 10.09.2009

Shri Ankit Gautam                                          .... Petitioner
                           Through Mr.Govind Kaushik, Advocate.

                                    Versus

State (Govt of NCT, Delhi) and another              .... Respondents
                      Through Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, 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.

*

1. The petitioner who is 100% blind is seeking direction to

respondent No.2, State Council of Educational Research & Training to

allow the petitioner to deposit the fees and grant admission in Diploma

Course in Elementary Teacher Education Program on the basis of his

merit under physically handicapped category.

2. The petitioner contended that he is 100% blind and he had

appeared in the 10+2 examination in May 2009 and secured 367

marked out of 500 marks, i.e., 73.40% marks. The petitioner had

submitted form for admission to Diploma Course in Elementary Teacher

Education in June/July 2009. According to the petitioner, Diploma

Course in Elementary Teacher Education is run by respondent No.2

which is an autonomous body under Government of NCT of Delhi.

According to the schedule of admission, the filled up forms had to be

submitted by 4th July, 2009 and on the basis of the qualifying

examination, the merit list had to be put up by the respondent No.2 on

the website www.scertdelhi.org on 24th July, 2009. The candidates

whose names were on the merit list had to appear for verification and

submit all original documents and fees on 24th, 25th and 27th July, 2009

between 10 AM to 5 PM. The second list for admission was to be put up

by respondent No.2 on 6th August, 2009 whereas the waiting list had to

be put up on 18th August, 2009 according to the schedule of admission.

3. The petitioner‟s grievance is that the first list of admission was

not put up on 24th July, 2009 rather it was put up on 27th July, 2009.

No intimation was given to the petitioner regarding change of schedule

of declaration of merit list and revised dates for verification and

admission. The petitioner has contended that since he is 100% blind

he could not access the website on his own and therefore he

approached a cyber café, "Sai Cyber Café" for ascertain his name in the

admission list. It is contended that the person at the Cyber café had

told him that his name had not appeared in the admission list. The

petitioner also asserted that he could not take help of his father as he is

working with Indian Air Force and is posted at Pune. According to the

petitioner, since he is 100% blind he could not come to know about his

result till 3rd August, 2009 whereas the revised last date for depositing

the fees was 30th July, 2009 which was also not communicated to the

petitioner. According to the petitioner, his father, therefore, came on 3rd

August, 2009 and approached the respondent No.2 seeking admission

to Diploma Course in Elementary Teacher Education (ETE) under the

physically handicapped category, however, it has been turned down by

the respondents.

4. The petitioner, thereafter, filed the present petition contending

inter alia that he is a meritorious candidate and on account of his being

100% blind, he had to depend on other to get his result checked and he

was told that his name did not appear in the first merit list which was

put up on 27th July, 2009 instead of 24th July, 2009 as was indicated in

the bulletin of information. It is pleaded that in the circumstances, the

petitioner cannot be denied his right to get admission because he could

not approach 30th July, 2009 revised date for taking admission which

was not communicated to the petitioner.

5. The petition is contested by the respondent contending inter alia

that reporting of candidate whose name had appeared on the website in

the first list was mentioned as 24th, 25th and 27th July, 2009 from 10.00

AM to 5.00 PM. The candidates whose names were included in the first

list had to appear on said dates from 10 AM to 5 PM and second list

was to be declared on 6th August, 2008.

6. Relying on clause 9(f), it is contended that the candidates who

failed to report for admission on the date and time designated for

particular allotted institute, are not be entertained for admission under

any circumstances at later stage. It is also asserted that in case of

exigencies like death of family members, accidents, the

guardian/representative of candidate along with written request and all

original documents and fees etc. had to report to the principal of

allotted DIET/institute on the specified date and time so that the seat of

a candidate could be retained accordingly.

7. The respondent No.2, however, admitted that first list for

admission could not be put up on the website on 24th July, 2009 and

the first list was put up on 27th July, 2009 for admission with effect

from 28th July, 2009 to 30th July, 2009. It is contended that those

candidates who did not get admission in the first list by appearing from

28th July, 2009 to 30th July, 2008, their admission had been cancelled

and the seats have been giving to the other candidates in the waiting

list. The respondent No.2 categorically denied that the name of the

petitioner did not appear in the admission list of 27th July, 2009. It is

contended that since the petitioner did not appear on 28th, 29th and 30th

July, 2009, he has lost his chance and his seat has gone to the second

list candidate. The admission of the petitioner is also resisted on the

ground that more than 100 candidates like the petitioner have not been

granted admission because they could not deposit the fees within the

stipulated time.

8. The petitioner filed a rejoinder categorically asserting that since

the result was not declared on 24th July, 2009, he went on 28th July,

2009 to Sai Cyber Café at Village Mohamadpur near Sector 1, R.K.

Puram which is near to his residence and an employee who accessed

the site on behalf of the petitioner told him that his name is not in the

select list. The petitioner has also produced a copy of the Cyber Café

slip to indicate that he had approached the said cyber café on 28th July,

2009 and on his behalf internet was used from 10 AM to 10.30 AM.

The petitioner also claimed admission on the ground that if exigencies

like death or accidents itself, the seat of a candidate can be retained,

therefore, in the circumstances of the petitioner who is completely blind

and since the result was not declared by the respondent No.2 on the

date notified by them and no intimation was given, therefore, the

circumstances are exceptional and he is entitled for admission to the

said course.

9. The petitioner also contended that the respondents have issued

the list of other category candidates separately which includes the name

of only four candidates. The petitioner also relied on the order dated

12th August, 2009 passed by this Court directing the respondent to

keep one seat available for the petitioner in Diploma Course in

Elementary Teacher Education for session 2009-2010 at DIET,

Motibagh Centre, New Delhi. It is also contended that the respondents

have not denied that the one seat could not be retained at the said DIET

pursuant to order dated 12th August, 2009 as the said fact has not been

denied in the counter affidavit dated 28th August, 2009 filed on behalf of

the respondent.

10. This court heard the learned counsel for the parties. This is not

disputed that the petitioner is 100% blind. If the petitioner is 100%

blind and his father was also not posted in Delhi, the reliance of the

petitioner on some other person cannot be faulted. The respondent

No.2 also cannot absolve themselves from the consequences of not

putting up the list of admission on 24th July, 2009. This is also not

disputed and cannot be disputed that no individual intimation were

sent to the candidates whose names were included in the first

admission list. In case the respondent No.2 had put the list on 24th

July, 2009, the petitioner could not be permitted to make the grievance

which has been made by the petitioner on account of not displaying the

first admission list on 24th July, 2009 according to the schedule of

admission. If the list was not put up on 24th July, 2009, it was not

expected from petitioner to keep on accessing the website everyday to

check as to when the list would be put up by the respondent No.2.

11. The plea of the petitioner that he approached a cyber café in order

to get admission list checked on the website on 28th July, 2009 cannot

be disbelieved. The version of the petitioner that he got the website

accessed through someone, a boy at the cyber café on 28th July, 2009

who told him that his name did not appear in the first admission list,

cannot be doubted. The 100% disability of the petitioner and the fact

that the respondent No.2 also faulted in not displaying the first

admission list on 24th July, 2009 will make the case of the petitioner as

an exceptional case or such a case for which an eventuality of retaining

the seat should have been resorted to by the respondent no.2. Retention

of seat under clause 9(f) could not be denied to the petitioner because

the father of the petitioner who was posted at a considerable distance

from New Delhi could not reach Delhi between 28th to 30th July, 2009.

The respondent no.2 cannot absolve themselves from the consequences

of not adhering to scheduled dates for putting up the admission list on

the internet. If the admission list had been delayed for the reasons,

which have not been disclosed, the respondent no.2 should have given

personal intimation to the candidates whose names had appeared in the

admission and who were seeking admission under the category of

physically handicapped. The petitioner cannot apply the rigor of rule of

cancellation of the seat in case of petitioner or his guardian not

approaching the respondent by the last date notified by the respondent

no.2.

12. The plea of the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that since

the father of the petitioner and petitioner had not approached the

principal of the allotted DIET cannot be accepted on the ground that the

seat of the petitioner stood cancelled on 30th July, 2009. The second

admission list was to be put up on 6th July, 2009 and the petitioner

with his father had approached the respondent no.2 on 3rd July, 2009

which fact cannot be denied. In these circumstances, the respondent

no.2 should have directed the principal of the concerned DIET to retain

the seat of the petitioner and ought not to have offered to other

candidate below the merit position of the petitioner. Non retention of the

seat which was allocated to the petitioner could be worked out contrary

to the interest of the petitioner. In the circumstances, it cannot be held

that the petitioner had forfeited his right to admission despite petitioner

approaching the respondent no.2 on 3rd August, 2009.

13. The plea of the respondent no.2 that they are about hundred

candidates like petitioner who have not been given admission on

account of not approaching the allotted DIET by the last date cannot be

accepted. Though in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent

no. 2 it is contended that there are hundred candidates like that of

petitioner, however, it is not disclosed whether any of them is hundred

percent blind and has sought admission in the category of physically

handicapped. The case of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances

cannot be equated with other candidates who could not approach the

allotted DIET by the last date notified by the respondent no. 2 in the

facts and circumstances. Circumstances will vary from case to case and

on the ground that other candidates will also become entitled for

admission, the petitioner cannot be denied admission to the said course

who is 100% blind and who despite efforts on his part, could not

approach the respondent No.2 on the new dates fixed by respondent

no.2 after failing to declare the admission list on 24th July, 2009

according to schedule of admission. In any case allegedly similarly

placed candidates have not approached this court and in the

circumstances, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be denied to

him on this ground.

14. If on account of death of the family member, accident etc. the seat

of a candidate could be retained for the purpose of production of

original documents later on, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of

the case, it cannot be held that the petitioner has forfeited his right for

admission to Diploma Course in Elementary Teacher Education.

15. This has not been disputed that pursuant to interim order passed

by this court dated 12th August, 2009, the respondent No.2 have

retained one seat in Diploma Course in Elementary Teacher Education

in DIET, Motibagh Centre, New Delhi in the physically handicapped

quota as this fact has not been denied by the respondent No.2 in their

counter affidavit. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances the

respondent No.2 is liable to admit the petitioner in Diploma Course in

Elementary Teacher Education in DIET Motibagh Centre, New Delhi.

Therefore, it will be just and appropriate to direct the respondent No.2

to admit the petitioner in the said DIET.

16. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

petitioner, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to

admit the petitioner in the Diploma Course in Elementary Teacher

Education at DIET Motibagh Centre, New Delhi. The petitioner is

permitted to deposit the fees and to produce his relevant documents

entitling him for admission to the said course within two weeks. The

petitioner be given admission forthwith in the facts and circumstances

and be allowed to attend classes. Considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

Dasti.

September 10th, 2009                                          ANIL KUMAR, J.
„Dev‟