Aridaman Singh vs University Of Delhi And Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 6121 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     W.P.(C) 7616/2011 and CMs 17235/2011, 17843/2011

                                                    Decided on : 14.12.2011
IN THE MATTER OF

ARIDAMAN SINGH                                         ..... Petitioner
                          Through: Mr. Deepender Hooda, Advocate

                    versus


UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS                         ..... Respondents
                    Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, Advocate for R-1
                    and R-2/University.
                    Mr. Anurag Mathur, Advocate for R-3/College.


CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI


HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for

directions to respondents No.1 and 2/University and respondent

No.3/College to carry out admission of the petitioner to B.A. (Programme)

first year course under the sports quota (basketball). The alternative

relief sought by the petitioner is for directions to the respondents to

conduct fresh trials of sports quota (basketball) and grant admission to

him in the aforesaid undergraduate course.

2. Pertinently, the present petition came to be filed by the petitioner

on 18.10.2011, whereas it is an admitted position that as per the

directions issued by the Supreme Court, admissions to the undergraduate

courses are required to be completed on or before 31.08.2011 on an

annual basis.

3. Notice was issued on the present petition on 20.10.2011 and

thereafter, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent

No.3/College. As per the petitioner, in June 2011, he had applied for

admission to the first year B.A. (Programme) course in respondent

No.3/College under the sports quota category (basketball) for the

academic session 2011-12. On 28.06.2011, the petitioner was called for

appearing for the trials which were to be held for selection in the sports

quota. On 07.07.2011, the petitioner appeared in the interview alongwith

the relevant documents. It is the case of the petitioner that he was

finally selected by the Committee constituted by respondent No.3/College

alongwith four other candidates under the sports quota (basketball).

However, on the eve of the commencement of classes, respondent

No.3/College cancelled all the admissions made under the sports quota on

account of an objection raised by other candidates that the trials held for

selection in sports quota were unfair and biased. The petitioner claims

that thereafter he contacted respondent No.3/College to enquire about

the fate of those who had applied for admission under the sports quota,

but as per respondent No.3/College, the matter was not in their hands

anymore and he was informed that the final decision rested with

respondents No.1 and 2/University. After waiting for a long time to

receive a communication as regards his admission, the petitioner has filed

the present petition stating inter alia that due to the negligent and

adamant attitude of the respondents, he and other similarly placed

candidates selected for getting admission to seats allotted under the

sports quota are at the brink of losing an academic year.

4. Respondent No.3/College has filed an affidavit through its Principal,

wherein it is stated that the present petition is highly belated. On merits,

it is submitted that in all 377 applications, including that of the petitioner,

were received by it for grant of admission in the sports quota category.

The trials for various courses were to be conducted from 28.06.2011 to

30.06.2011. A notice to the said effect was issued by respondent

No.3/College on 14.06.2011. While steps were being taken to select

candidates in the sports quota category, complaints were received by

respondent No.3/College as also respondents No.1 and 2/University in

respect of irregularities committed by the Sports Admission Committee

constituted by the Staff Council of the College in selecting candidates in

the said quota. It is averred that based on the aforesaid complaints,

respondents No.1 and 2/University initiated an enquiry. Pending the

aforesaid enquiry, respondent No.3/College issued a notice dated

27.07.2011 to the effect that an admission list was not being finalized

under the Sports/Extra Curricular Activity category for the undergraduate

courses in the academic year 2011-12. On 01.08.2011, respondents

No.1 and 2/University informed respondent No.3/College that the matter

had been examined and prima facie, discrepancies were found in the

admissions made under the Sports and Extra Curricular Activity category.

As a result, respondent No.3/College was advised by respondents No.1

and 2/University to take appropriate remedial action.

5. Counsel for respondent No.3/College states that in view of the

aforesaid observation made by respondents No.1 and 2/University, the

Governing Body of respondent No.3/College resolved in its meeting held

on 10.08.2011 that a three member committee would be constituted to

look into the stated discrepancies. It was further decided that pending

the report of the said committee, no student would be admitted under the

Sports/Extra Curricular Activity category. However, as the list of the

members of the Enquiry Committee could not be finalized, respondent

No.3/College did not admit any student under the Sports/Extra Curricular

Activity category, which is 5% of the total number of the seats in the

undergraduate courses in all streams offered by respondent No.3/College.

Pertinently, 5% of the aforesaid total seats translates into 37 seats.

6. On 23.11.2011, as it was observed that respondent No.3/College

had not indicated the steps taken by it to fill up the vacant seats under

the Sports/Extra Curricular Activity category, the Principal of respondent

No.3/College was called to appear alongwith the relevant records on the

next date, i.e., 24.11.2011. On 24.11.2011, the Principal of respondent

No.3/College was present in Court alongwith the relevant records and the

Court had an occasion to interact with him. Thereafter, respondent

No.3/College was called upon to file an additional affidavit stating inter

alia as to whether 5% seats, which fall under the Sports/Extra Curricular

Activity quota continued to remain vacant or had been filled up and if so,

the manner in which they had been filled up.

7. Now an additional affidavit has been filed by respondent

No.3/College on the aforesaid aspect. It is submitted by the counsel for

respondent No.3/College that the total sanctioned strength of the College

for the undergraduate courses for the academic year 2011-12 is 752

seats, which includes the Sports/Extra Curricular Activity category.

Against the aforesaid 752 seats, respondent No.3/College has admitted an

additional number of 136 candidates, thus totaling to 888 students as on

25.11.2011. Out of a total of 37 seats under the Sports/Extra Curricular

Activity category, 9 candidates are stated to have been admitted under

the Extra Curricular Activity category and the remaining 28 seats in the

said category, which remained unfilled, have been filled up from the

surplus students, who had applied to the College for admission. He states

that the aforesaid additional admissions had to be undertaken on account

of a change in the norms of admission implemented for the academic year

2011-12. He further states that not only have the 5% seats, which were

lying vacant in the Sports/Extra Curricular Activity category, been filled

up, excessive students have been admitted by respondent No.3/College

on account of the changed norms. He, therefore, assures the Court that

none of the seats have remained vacant and gone abegging and instead,

excessive students have been accommodated by respondent No.3/College

in the current year.

8. Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2/University states that as far as

the University is concerned, under Ordinance XVIII (6-A), the Staff

Councils of the Colleges are required to organize admissions and the

University has no role to play in that regard. She further states that in

the present case, respondents No.1 and 2/University had to hold trials for

filling up the seats in the Extra Curricular Activity category on account of

orders passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.(C) 5678/2011 entitled

Nayna Jain and Ors. vs. University of Delhi. It is further stated by

learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2/University that the University

is taking necessary steps to lay down appropriate guidelines for the

constitution of an Extra Curricular Activity Selection Committee and a

Sports Quota Selection Committee in all colleges, so that in future no

such eventuality arises, whereby trials for the Sports/Extra Curricular

Activity category are held but are not given effect to due to some

arbitrariness or illegalities committed in the selection process. She states

that the aforesaid steps have been undertaken by respondents No.1 and

2/University in compliance of the order dated 15.09.2011 passed in the

aforesaid writ petition.

9. In view of the above affidavit filed by respondent No.3/College, this

Court is satisfied that the remaining 28 seats in the Sports/Extra

Curricular Activity category have not gone abegging and have been duly

filled up. As regards the case of the petitioner, to start with, it may be

noted that the present petition is hit by gross delay and latches on the

part of the petitioner in approaching the Court for relief, inasmuch as

even though the cut-off date for admission to the undergraduate courses

in Delhi University had been fixed by the Supreme Court as 31.08.2011,

the petitioner chose to approach this Court, as belatedly as on

18.10.2011. It may also be noted that in the present case, no vested

right has accrued in favour of the petitioner, for the reason that he had

only participated in the trials and no final decision had been taken after

conducting the same. Rather, the entire process has lapsed due to

various reasons, one of them being that the tenure of the Governing Body

of respondent No.3/College had lapsed on 31.08.2011 and as a result, no

steps could be taken in furtherance of the decision taken on 10.08.2011

in the meeting of the Governing Body, to constitute a committee of

experts to look into the process of selection under the Sports/Extra

Curricular Activity category and to examine whether the rules and norms

were being duly followed, besides fixing responsibility for the irregularities

committed, if any. In such circumstances, no further orders are required

to be passed in the present petition, which is disposed of.

10. While parting with the present case, this Court would like to

emphasis that the respondents No.1 and 2/University should expedite the

process of framing of guidelines, to be followed by the colleges affiliated

to the University for filling up of seats under the Sports/Extra Curricular

Activity category, by making the said admission process completely

transparent and untainted by any irregularity or and by ruling out the

eventuality of any arbitrariness on the part of the colleges, more so when

in today's day and time, there is a cut throat competition between

students, each one vying for every precious seat, which have become

almost unobtainable due to the high academic standards set by colleges

for admissions. It is very disappointing that in the present case, those

students, who had been successful in the trials held for the Sports

category, were left in a lurch, on account of the delayed action on the

part of respondents No.1 and 2/University and respondents No.3/College,

apart from other intervening circumstances. In such a background, it is

deemed expedient to direct respondents No.1 and 2/University to ensure

that the guidelines required to be laid down by the University in this

regard, are in place well before the commencement of the coming

academic session 2012-13 and they are given effect to by all colleges for

filling up seats under the Sports/Extra Curricular Activity category.

11. A copy of this order be given DASTI to the counsel for respondents

No.1 and 2/University to be placed before the Vice Chancellor of the

University, for perusal and compliance.

                                                        (HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER     14, 2011                                       JUDGE
rkb