Sadanan Kumar vs University Of Delhi & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 2370 Del

*      IN THE HIGH           OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                           W.P.(C) No.2997/2010


                                      Judgment delivered on:4.5.2010


Sadanan Kumar                                     .......Petitioner.
                                       Through : Mr. Nitin Kumar, Adv.


                                      Versus


University of Delhi & Anr.                    .......... Respondent

Through : Mr. M.J.S.Rupal, Adv.

CORAM

* HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may Yes be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to Reporter or not?                                  Yes

3.     Whether the judgment should be reported                             Yes
       in the Digest?


Kailash Gambhir, J. Oral:


1.            By    this   petition   filed    under         Article   226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to direct the

respondents to allow the petitioner to continue his studies in the

course of M.A.(Buddhist) in the Department of Buddhist Studies,

University of Delhi. The petitioner also seeks directions to set

aside the reply furnished by the respondent under RTI through

letter dated 30.4.2010.

2. Mr. Nitin Kumar, counsel for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner had secured 42.58% in graduation and that

he also did a certificate programme of one month in Sanskrit

from "Vasudev Sanskrit Prachar Samiti" which is situated in

Abhay Kutir, Sheetalmorg, Villasi Town B-Deoghar, Jharkhand.

Counsel further submits that at the time of seeking admission

in M.A. (Buddhist), he disclosed the correct facts with regard to

his qualification and based on the same he was admitted in the

said course. Counsel further submits that necessary identity card

and admit card to appear in the Ist semester examinations was

also issued to the petitioner after he was formally admitted in the

said course. Counsel also submits that the petitioner had

appeared in the Ist Semester and he had secured first division

and even for the IInd Semester the petitioner had already

deposited the examination fee of Rs.710/- vide receipt no. 65108.

Counsel further submits that at the time of the examination for

the IInd semester the petitioner was orally told that he was not

eligible to appear in the said exam as he was found ineligible to

seek admission in the said M.A. (Buddhist) course. The

petitioner thereafter filed an application under RTI so as to

know the exact status of his admission and through the reply sent

by the respondent under the RTI, the petitioner came to know

that his admission was cancelled because he did not secure the

mandatory 45% marks in his graduation for taking admission in

the said course. Assailing the reply and the decision of the

respondent university, counsel for the petitioner submits that as

per clause 23 of the prospectus issued by the Department for the

said course he was entitled to the weightage of 5% marks, being

a holder of certificate in Sanskrit and with the said weightage of

5% marks the petitioner becomes eligible to get admission in the

said M.A. (Buddhist) course. Counsel also submits that the said

certificate in Sanskrit was submitted by the petitioner at the

time the petitioner sought admission in the said course and in

fact the respondent had taken into consideration the said

certificate and thereafter only had allowed the petitioner to

appear in the exams for the Ist semester. Counsel thus urges that

the decision now taken by the respondent declaring the

petitioner ineligible for the said course is arbitrary and illegal.

3. Refuting the aforesaid submissions of the counsel for

the petitioner, Mr. Rupal counsel for the respondent submits that

the weightage of 5% marks under clause 23 of the prospectus

could be given only if the petitioner had done his certificate

course in Sanskrit equivalent to the other examination as

referred to in clause 23 of the said prospectus. The contention of

the counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner has merely

done a one month certificate course of Sanskrit which cannot be

treated as equivalent to the certificate courses in various other

subjects as referred to in clause 23 of the prospectus. Counsel

further submits that all these certificates are scrutinized by the

Equivalence Committee of the respondent and in the present

case also the Equivalence Committee found that the said

certificate of the petitioner in Sanskrit course is not equivalent to

the certificate courses as prescribed in clause 23 of the

prospectus. Counsel further submits that as per clause 8 of the

prospectus it is the sole responsibility of the candidate to prove

his/her eligibility for taking up the course. Counsel further

submits that all admissions are subject to verification of the

original certificates/documents issued by the competent

authority. Counsel further submits that under clause 9 of the

prospectus, if at any stage the applicant is found to be ineligible

then such an admission can be cancelled and thus no fault can

be found with the said decision taken by the respondent. In

support of his arguments counsel for the respondent has placed

reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Guru Nanak Dev

University Vs. Sanjay Kumar Kotwal & Anr. 2009 (1) SCC

610. Counsel has also placed reliance on Statute 8 Clause 9 of

the Statutes of the University of Delhi.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the records.

5. Indisputably, the petitioner secured 42.58% in

graduation and therefore, he was not entitled for the admission

in the said course of M.A.(Buddhist) based on the said marks.

However, under clause 23 of the prospectus the provision of

weightage of 5% marks has been made, which reads as under:

"23. Weightage of 5% marks will be given to those candidates who possess Certificate in Pali/Tibetan Language and Literature of this Department/Certificate in Chinese or any other equivalent examination; Certificate in Archaeology/Certificate in Sanskrit and Qualify under Category."

6. The petitioner in the present case claims weightage of

5% marks based on the certificate of one month course in

Sanskrit from "Vasudev Sanskrit Prachar Samiti" situated in

Abhay Kutir, Sheetalmorg, Villasi Town B, Deoghar, Jharkand.

The said certificate was not found equivalent to various other

courses as referred to in the said clause by the Equivalence

Committee of the University. The Apex Court in the judgment of

Guru Nank Dev University (Supra) has taken a view that the

courts will not interfere with the policy issue relating to the

academic matters. Relevant para of the said judgment is referred

as under:

"Equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. The first respondent has not been able to produce any document to show that appellant university has recognized the M.A. English (OUS) of Annamalai University through distance education as equivalent to M.A. of appellant university. Thus it has to be held that first respondent does not fulfil the eligibility criterion of the appellant university for admission to three year law course."

7. In the present case also it was the Equivalence

Committee of the University who took a decision that the

certificate as possessed by the petitioner in Sanskrit language

was not equivalent to the one as prescribed by the university.

Perusal of the photo copy of the said certificate which is placed

on record by the petitioner clearly shows that he had attended

some Sanskrit "Shivar" for a period of one month. The said

certificate was not found to be one as envisaged under clause 23

of the said prospectus, therefore, no fault can be found with the

decision taken by the Equivalence Committee of the respondent

university. The equivalence is a technical matter and unless the

decision of the Equivalence Committee is found to be totally

irrational and perverse, the same cannot be interfered by this

court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of Inida. Although, it would have been more

appropriate if the respondent university would have taken care

to take steps to inform the petitioner at the very beginning as

unnecessarily the petitioner has to suffer and his academic year

would now go waste at this belated stage, yet, at the same time

the petitioner was well aware of the fact that he was to fulfill the

eligibility criteria to secure admission in the said course. Under

clause 9 of the prospectus, admission to any course of the

Department can be cancelled by the respondent university if at

any stage the candidate is found ineligible for his admission in

the said course. The same reads as under:

"9. If an applicant is found to be ineligible at any stage even after admission to any course of this Department, his/her admission will stand cancelled."

8. Ineligibility of the candidate certainly disentitles

him/her to secure admission in a particular course and in the

present case the petitioner was clearly ineligible to get

admission in the said course as he was not entitled for the

weightage of 5% marks for the certificate course in Sanskrit

which he had undertaken just for a period of one month and

which certificate was not found to be one as envisaged under

clause 23 of the prospectus by the Equivalence Committee.

9. Hence in the light of the above discussion, I find no

merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

May 04, 2010                               KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
mg