Arunima Chandel vs University Of Delhi & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 4016 Del

              *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Date of decision: 31st August, 2010.

+                  W.P.(C) No.4608/2010 & CM No.9106/2010 (for stay)

%

ARUNIMA CHANDEL                                                   ..... Petitioner
                              Through:      Mr. Arpan Behl & Mr. Rakesh Singh,
                                            Advocates.

                                         Versus

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.                     ..... Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal & Ms.
                           Sonam Gupta, Advocates for R-1&2.
                           Mr.   Pawan       Kumar      Agarwal,
                           Advocate for R-3.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?                       No

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?                No

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported               No
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner applied to the respondent no.1 University of Delhi for

admission in Undergraduate Courses under the category of Reservation for

Armed Forces. The provision in this regard in the Bulletin of Information-

2010 printed by the University of Delhi is as under:-

"4.2 Reservation for Armed Forces

5% of the total number of seats in each of the course has been reserved for the Children/Widows/Wives of the Officers and Men of the Armed Forces including Para-Military Personnel, killed/disabled in action or those who died/or disabled on duty and the wards of ex-service men personnel and serving personnel who are in receipt of gallantry award and are seeking admission will be required to get their names registered for Science Courses at the Faculty of Science, North Campus, University of Delhi and other than Science Courses at Room No.220, New Administrative Block, North Campus, University of Delhi (between May 28, 2010 to June 11, 2010 from 10.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. excluding Sundays).

Relaxation to the extent of 5% in the minimum marks in the aggregate or in the subject, as the case may be, will be given to the candidates of the below mentioned categories while determining their eligibility to the course concerned.

 Widows/Wards of Defence personnel killed in action;

 Wards of serving personnel and Ex-servicemen disabled in action;

 Widows/Wards of Defence personnel who died in peace time with death attributable to military service;

 Wards of Defence personnel disabled in peace time with disability attributable to military service;

 Wards of Ex-servicemen personnel and serving personnel including police personnel who are in receipt of Gallantry Awards;

(Above categories are also applicable for Para Military personnel)"

2. The respondent no.1 University issued a Provisional Admission Slip

to the petitioner admitting the petitioner in B.Com (Hons.) course in

respondent no.3 Sri Ram College of Commerce (SRCC). The petitioner

approached the SRCC College with the said Provisional Admission Slip.

Upon the SRCC College refusing to admit the petitioner, the present petition

was filed seeking a direction against the SRCC College to admit the

petitioner in the 1st Year of the B.Com (Hons.) course for the Academic

Year 2010-2011. The petition came up first before this Court on 14 th July,

2010 when while issuing notice of the petition, the SRCC College was

directed to reserve a seat for the petitioner in B.Com (Hons.) course subject

to further orders in this writ petition.

3. The counsel for the respondent no.1 University on the next date i.e.

21st July, 2010 informed that the respondent no.1 University had erroneously

recommended the petitioner for admission to the SRCC College; it was

stated that the mistake occurred because while computing the total number

of seats available, the OBC seats were also included; had the said seats been

not included, the petitioner would not have qualified for admission into

SRCC College. It was further informed that upon mistake being detected,

the petitioner as per her entitlement was recommended for admission to

Hansraj College and had already taken admission therein. An affidavit to the

said effect was also subsequently filed. The factum of having taken

admission in Hansraj College is not disputed by the petitioner also. The

SRCC College has also filed a counter affidavit stating that the sanctioned

seats in B.Com (Hons.) course in the year 2007-2008 were 325; that the

seats were increased in view of The Central Educational Institutions

(Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 to admit OBC students; that 5% of the

seats reserved for the Armed Forces category were wrongly calculated by

the respondent no.1 University on the basis of the said increased strength

when according to the Rules of the respondent no.1 University, the said 5%

seats were to be computed on the basis of the sanctioned strength pre-

enhancement stage. It is stated that on this basis only 4 seats were available

for reservation for Armed Forces category and the said four seats were filled

up by admitting students above the petitioner in the list published by the

University of candidates entitled to admission in the Armed Forces category.

4. Though the petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit of

the respondent no.1 University, invoking the principles of promissory

estoppel and law of legitimate expectation but has not been able to

controvert the Rules on the basis whereof 5% of the seats for Armed Forces

are to be computed.

5. The counsel for the petitioner however sought to agitate the right of

the petitioner by contending that the SRCC College has admitted students in

the Armed Forces category having marks lower than that of the petitioner.

Even though the same did not form the basis of challenge in the writ petition

but in the circumstances aforesaid, the said plea has been considered. The

counsels for the respondent no.1 University and the SRCC College have

explained that the students who have been admitted, though having marks

lower than that of the petitioner but are in a category (within Armed Forces)

higher than the petitioner and were thus entitled to preference over the

petitioner.

6. I may mention that though the Bulletin of Information published by

the respondent no.1 University of Delhi and relevant portion of which has

been quoted hereinabove does not so provide but I had an occasion to deal

with the subject in W.P.(C) No.5015/2010 titled Miss Harleen K. Bains vs.

The University of Delhi pronounced on 17th August, 2010; the instructions

issued by the University to the colleges for admission to Undergraduate

Courses as well as the Minutes of the Academic Council of the University

relating to admission in Armed Forces category were examined therein. It

was found that the reservation for Armed Forces is priority-wise with

highest priority to the candidate in the first category i.e. highest preference

being given to widows/wards of Defence personnel killed in action and the

lowest preference being of wards of ex-servicemen personnel and serving

personnel in receipt of Gallantry Awards. Thus wards of Defence personnel

disabled in peace time with disability attributable to military service are in a

higher category than the wards of ex-servicemen personnel and serving

personnel who are in receipt of Gallantry Awards.

7. The counsels for the respondent no.1 University and the SRCC

College explain that the four students who have been admitted are of a

category above that of the petitioner and as is also apparent from the list

drawn up by the respondent no.1 University.

8. The counsel for the petitioner of course contended that the Bulletin of

Information of the respondent no.1 University did not provide for such priority to

be given. However the reservation for Armed Forces is not based on the Bulletin

of Information but is based on the instructions issued by the Ministry of Defence

and if the said instructions give preference in reservation to one category over

other, the respondent no.1 University is bound by the same. There is no challenge

to that in the present petition.

9. I am therefore satisfied that the petitioner was not entitled to admission in

the SRCC College and the petitioner was mistakenly issued the Provisional

Admission Slip aforesaid. No case of promissory estoppel or legitimate

expectation is made out. Promissory estoppel cannot be used to compel the Govt.

or a public authority to carry out a representation or promise which is prohibited

by law or which was devoid of the authority or power of the officer of the Govt. or

the public authority to make. (See Vasantkumar Radhakrishan Vora Vs. The

Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay MANU/SC/0005/1991). The Supreme

Court in Union of India Vs. Hindustan Development Corporation AIR 1994 SC

988, with respect to the legitimate expectations also held that legitimacy of an

expectation can be inferred only if it is founded on the sanction of law or custom

or an established procedure followed in natural and regular sequence. The

petitioner as it is availing the benefit of reservation cannot displace another

candidate also entitled to reservation and in a category higher than the petitioner as

per the reservation Policy.

The petition is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 31st August, 2010/pp