Delhi High Court
Nisha Shokeen vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ... on 22 September, 2009
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C.) No.11754/2009
% Date of Decision: 22.09.2009
Nisha Shokeen .... Petitioner
Through Ms. Kusum Sharma and Mr. Mannu
Mohan, Advocates.
Versus
Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Anr. .... Respondents
Through Mr. G.D. Goel with Mr. Praveen Kumar,
Advocates.
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 seeks a direction to the respondent No.1 to grant
admission to the petitioner forthwith to the course of M.Ed (Code-04)
2009-2010 on the basis that the petitioner has done her B.Ed. from an
institution/college situated in Delhi.
2. The petitioner has contended that she appeared for the entrance
test for admission in M.Ed Course (Code-04) for the academic year
2009-2010 in Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. According to
the petitioner the result of the entrance examination was declared and
the petitioner secured 1st rank in the OBC category and 35th rank in
General category. According to the petitioner she has been denied
admission on the ground that her study centre was at Meerut,
therefore, she could not be considered as candidate from an institution
located outside Delhi,
3. Perusal of the seat allocation of Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha
University, a copy of which is filed by the petitioner, reveals that the
sanctioned intake of 15% for outside Delhi region is for those
candidates who have passed the qualifying examination from any
school/institute located outside Delhi whereas the sanctioned intake for
the candidates from Delhi Region is 85%.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner should have
been considered as a Delhi candidate and she could not be considered
as a candidate from outside Delhi because she has done her B.Ed. from
IGNOU and her regional centre was Delhi Region 2 and under the
Regional Centre the study centre of the petitioner was at Meerut.
5. This is not disputed that petitioner was enrolled with Indira
Gandhi National Open University for her course of B.Ed. The open
university has study centres throughout the country and the petitioner
was enrolled to a study centre which was at Meerut. The fact that the
study centre/institution of the petitioner at Meerut was under the
Regional Centre II which is located at Delhi does not make the study
centre/institution in Delhi.
6. The study centre in the system of open learning is equivalent to a
school or institution where the candidates attend classes under the
contact programme. Though the regular classes are not conducted in
the open system of education, however, the contact classes are
conducted at the institution to which a candidate is enrolled. The
petitioner cannot deny that she had to attend the contact classes at an
institution which is also known as study centre located at Meerut. Since
the study centre which is equivalent to an institution of the petitioner
for the course of B.Ed was at Meerut, the petitioner cannot be
considered as a candidate of Delhi region and petitioner could be
considered only as a candidate of outside Delhi region.
7. Since the petitioner could not be considered as a candidate
qualifying examination from any institution located in Delhi, therefore,
she has not been granted admission and the decision of the
respondents to consider the petitioner as a candidate who has done her
qualifying degree of B.Ed. from an institution located outside Delhi
cannot be faulted.
8. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief
claimed and the writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Parties are,
however, left to bear their own cost.
September 22nd, 2009 ANIL KUMAR, J.
'k'
