Rekha vs University Of Delhi And Ors
2010 Latest Caselaw 4957 Del

              *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Date of decision: 27th October, 2010.

+ W.P.(C) 7006/2010 & CM No.13882/2010 (ex parte ad interim relief)

REKHA                                                          ..... Petitioner
                            Through:      Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Mr. V.
                                          Elanchezhiyan & Mr. Rajesh Kumar
                                          Verma, Advocates.

                                       versus

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS                 ..... Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate
                          for R-1 to 4.

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 belonging to OBC category applied for admission to

M.A. English course through the channel of admission test in the respondent

University of Delhi. The said course is offered at North & South Campus of

the University and also at Non-Collegiate Women's Education Board

(NCWEB) which is impleaded as respondent no.4. The petitioner, in the

admission test secured 41 marks and a rank of 46 in OBC category. The

respondent University admitted only those OBC candidates whose marks

were within the 10% bandwidth of the marks of the last candidate admitted

in the General category. The marks of the petitioner being not in the said

bandwith, admission was denied to the petitioner.

2. This petition has been filed relying on the judgment dated 7th

September, 2010 in W.P.(C) No.4857/2010 titled Apurva Vs. UOI in which

this Bench struck down the criteria aforesaid of 10% bandwith. The petition

came up before this Court first on 20th October, 2010 when the counsel for

the respondent University sought time to take instructions as to whether

NCWEB is a part of the respondent University or not and also on as to

when the classes for the academic year had commenced.

3. The counsel for the respondent University today informs that

NCWEB is a part of the University of Delhi. On enquiry he states that

though if the judgment in Apurva were followed, the petitioner may have

qualified for admission in OBC category in North/South Campus but he has

not taken instructions on the said aspect since the counsel for the petitioner

on the last date of hearing had confined the relief for admission for the

course in NCWEB. He further states that for admission at NCWEB, the

petitioner besides registering at the North Campus was also required to

register with the NCWEB and which the petitioner did not do. Attention is

invited to Annexure P-8 to the petition wherein the petitioner in a

communication to the respondent University admitted that she was not

aware of the provision for applying separately to NCWEB but had

nevertheless sought admission for pursuing the course of M.A. English at

NCWEB. Attention is also invited to Clause 7 at page 6 of the Bulletin of

Information for Admission to Post Graduate Courses in the Academic Year

2010-2011 published by the University of Delhi providing for such separate

registration with NCWEB.

4. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the "Information for

Candidates" (copy whereof is annexed as Annexure P-2 to the petition)

appended to the Admission Form did not contain any such requirement for

registration separately with NCWEB and rather provided for registration at

North Campus only giving preference for admission to North Campus/South

Campus/ NCWEB. He states that for the said reason the petitioner did not

register with NCWEB.

5. I have also perused the Bulletin of Information (supra) handed over

by the counsel for the respondent University. Though the same provides for

separate registration with NCWEB in the general chapter but does not so

provide in the specific chapter dealing with admission for M.A. English

course.

6. I have also enquired from the counsel for the respondent University as

to what is the significance of separate registration with NCWEB and what is

the impact of non-registration by the petitioner therein. The counsel in

response has drawn attention to Clause 10 of Information for Candidates

(supra) which provides "candidates belonging to Delhi are eligible for

getting admission in NCWEB category". It is stated that NCWEB at the

time of registration satisfies itself as to the whether the applicant has

domicile of Delhi. It has been further enquired from the counsel for the

respondent University as to why domicile of Delhi is insisted upon for

pursuing the course at NCWEB. The counsel states that though he has no

instructions but his opinion and understanding is that since NCWEB is

primarily meant for working women, and holds classes on weekly basis

therefore proximity of residence is insisted upon. He further informs that his

understanding is that Delhi includes the NCR. It is informed that the

petitioner in her application had given address of Bahadurgarh and would

not qualify as belonging to Delhi.

7. The counsel for the petitioner informs that the petitioner has

undertaken her under graduation course from University of Delhi and that

way belongs to Delhi. It is further urged that there is no such restriction for

admission for the course in North/South Campus where daily classes are

held. The counsel for the respondent University also does not controvert the

said position.

8. The counsel for the respondent University on enquiry informs that the

weekly classes at NCWEB for the current academic year commenced only

in the month of September.

9. In the entirety for the aforesaid circumstances, even though notice has

been issued in the Special Leave Petition against the judgment in Apurva,

finding that the petitioner appears to have been denied a seat in OBC

category in North/South Campus, it is deemed expedient to overlook the

default of the petitioner in non-registration with NCWEB particularly when

the requirement for such separate registration with NCWEB is contained

only in the general chapter and neither in the specific chapter regarding

admission to M.A. English course nor in the Information for Candidates

published by the respondent University. Even though the last date for

admissions i.e. 30th August, 2010 has already lapsed but since the weekly

classes in NCWEB to which the petitioner is seeking admission commenced

only in September, 2010, it is felt that the said provision of last date does not

create a bar. Moreover the said aspect has been dealt in detail by the

undersigned in a recent judgment dated 18th October, 2010 in W.P.(C)

No.6641/2010 tilted Dhruv Singhal Vs. GGSIP University and need is not

felt to reiterate the same reasons herein.

10. The counsel for the respondent University contends that the rules of

admission cannot be given a go by, particularly when there is no challenge

even thereto. Reliance in this regard is placed on Sunil Oraon Vs. CBSE

(2006) 13 SCC 673 reiterating the law as laid down in A.P. Christians

Medical Educational Society Vs. Govt. of A.P. (1986) 2 SCC 667. However

that case was concerned with the Statutes and Ordinances of the University.

In the present case it is not shown that the requirement of belonging to Delhi

is a part of any Statute/Ordinance/Regulations.

11. The counsel for the respondent University then seeks time to file

counter affidavit but since the petition would become infructuous if further

time is allowed to elapse and further in view of the position which has

emerged, need is not felt therefor.

12. As far as the requirement of domicile of Delhi is concerned, I find that

the expression used is only "belonging to Delhi". The petitioner who has

done her under graduation from Delhi University would certainly fall in the

said category. Moreover no rationale is found in insisting upon residence at

Delhi for those who have to attend weekly classes and not imposing any

such condition for those who have to attend daily classes. The counsel for

the respondent University again contends that the petitioner has not

challenged the Rules of the respondent University in this regard. However it

is not deemed expedient to enter into legalese in as much as any further

delay would make the petition infructuous.

13. It was also enquired from the counsel for the respondent University

whether there are any vacancies in the M.A. English course in NCWEB. The

counsel while replying in the affirmative has stated that though the

vacancies exist but there is a dearth of teaching space and infrastructure and

he has been told that the admitted students even have to stand in the weekly

classes. However since the vacancies exist, lack of infrastructure cannot

come in the way of admission.

14. In the peculiar facts and circumstances aforesaid, the petition is

allowed to the extent aforesaid. Subject to the petitioner complying with the

formalities for admission for M.A. English in NCWEB, the petitioner be

admitted to the said course at NCWEB within one week of today. No order

as to costs.

Dasti.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 27th October, 2010 pp..