Aditya Narang vs Uoi And Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 1129 Del

$-41 to 45

             *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                 Date of decision: 24th February, 2011

+        W.P.(C) 1258/2011 & CM 2651/2011 (for interim relief)


         ASHUTOSH CHAUBEY                  ..... Petitioner
                     Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate
                     with Mr. Sumeet Sodhi, Mr. Rishab Sancheti
                     and Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocates.

                             versus

         UOI AND ORS                                       ..... Respondents
                                        Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, Advocate for
                                        Respondent No.1/UOI.

                                                AND

+        W.P.(C) 1260/2011 & CM 2655/2011 (for interim relief)

         VIPUL CHAWLA                                        ..... Petitioner
                                        Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate
                                        with Mr. Sumeet Sodhi, Mr. Rishab Sancheti
                                        and Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocates.

                             versus

         UOI AND ORS                                       ..... Respondents
                                        Through Mr. Sachin Datta, Advocate for
                                        Respondent No.1/UOI.

W.P.(C) 1258,1260,1262,1263,1264/2011                                    Page 1 of 11
          W.P.(C) 1262/2011 & CM 2658/2011 (for interim relief)

         SHRI DIPESH KAIEN                   ..... Petitioner
                       Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate
                       with Mr. Sumeet Sodhi, Mr. Rishab Sancheti
                       and Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocates.

                             versus

         UOI AND ORS                                       ..... Respondents
                                        Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, Advocate for
                                        Respondent No.1/UOI.

                                                AND

+        W.P.(C) 1263/2011 & CM 2660/2011 (for interim relief)

         SUSHRUT CHOUBEY                   ..... Petitioner
                     Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate
                     with Mr. Sumeet Sodhi, Mr. Rishab Sancheti
                     and Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocates.

                             versus


         UOI AND ORS                                       ..... Respondents
                                        Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, Advocate for
                                        Respondent No.1/UOI.

                                                AND




W.P.(C) 1258,1260,1262,1263,1264/2011                                    Page 2 of 11
 +        W.P.(C) 1264/2011 & CM 2662/2011 (for interim relief)

         ADITYA NARANG                      ..... Petitioner
                     Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate
                     with Mr. Sumeet Sodhi, Mr. Rishab Sancheti
                     and Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocates.

                             versus

         UOI AND ORS                                       ..... Respondents
                                        Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, Advocate for
                                        Respondent No.1/UOI.

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 in each of the petitions had appeared for the

Common Admission Test 2010 for admission to the Indian Institutes of

Management (IIMs) impleaded as respondents No.3 to 13. They claim that

though each of them have in the result declared of the said test, scored very

high marks and are within the top three per cent of all those who had

appeared in the admission test, but none of them have been called for

interview/group discussion, being the next step in the admission process.

2. It is contended that though the public announcement on 30th August,

2010 for the Common Admission Test 2010 provided that the said test is

conducted "only as a pre-requisite for admission to the various IIMs" and

further that each IIM follows its own admission process independent of

other IIMs and also advised the prospective candidates to visit the websites

and/or read advertisement programme of the concerned IIMs to ensure

which programme he/she desired to apply for and what are the eligibility

requirements and admission process, but none of the IIMs till the

declaration of the result of the admission test put the admission criteria on

their respective websites. It is further contended that the admission criteria

now declared by each of the IIMs is not only different but arbitrary and

owing whereto none of the petitioners inspite of high rank in the admission

test have been called for next step in the admission process.

3. Relief, of quashing the shortlisting/eligibility criteria declared by the

IIMs as being discriminatory, capricious and arbitrary and without nexus to

any purported objective and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the

Constitution of India and of mandamus directing the IIMs to frame the

eligibility criteria uniformly and rationally is claimed in the petition. By

way of applications for interim relief, stay of the admission process in each

of the IIMs is claimed.

4. Though the opening argument of the senior counsel for the

petitioners is that had the IIMs followed the admission criteria as for the

previous year, the petitioners would have qualified, at least, to be called for

the next step in the admission process in some of the IIMs including at

Bangalore, but there is no basis whatsoever in the pleadings for the said

argument. The senior counsel for the petitioners also admits so. The

counsel for respondent No.1/UOI appearing on advance notice and though

not appearing for the IIMs on the contrary states that the admission criteria

atleast for the IIM Bangalore (respondent No.4) declared for the current

year is identical to the admission criteria for the previous year as appearing

on the website of the said IIM. The senior counsel for the petitioners is not

able to dispute the said statement and states that a further affidavit will

need to be filed with respect thereto. In the absence of any pleadings, no

notice can thus be taken of the said opening argument of petitioners.

However, the said argument demonstrates that as per the petitioners also,

even in the past, each IIM has been following a separate admission criteria

and it is not as if for the first time in this year, separate criteria are being

followed. The petitioners having appeared in the admission test with full

knowledge of the same, cannot now claim to be aggrieved from non-

uniformity in the various IIMs in the admission criteria.

5. Even otherwise, I am not satisfied that any case for directing the

IIMs to follow a uniform criteria is made out. The IIMs are institutions of

excellence which have established a name not only in the country but

world over in the academic environment and without anything substantive

being shown, no case for directing them to follow a uniform criteria is

made out. The senior counsel for the petitioners has also not been able to

show any such uniform practice/criteria being followed by the Ivy League

Universities/Colleges of any other countries.

6. The next contention of the senior counsel for the petitioners is

that the non-declaration of the eligibility criteria before the admission test

amounts to changing the rules of the game after the game has begun and is

not permissible and the admission process is liable to be set aside for the

said reason. The said principle of law relating to elections and extended to

service law, at least, to my notice has not been extended to admission in

colleges/universities. The senior counsel for the petitioners inspite of

prodding has not been able to show any precedent extending the said

principle to admission in academic institutions. I have also enquired as to

what prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by non-declaration of the

admission criteria prior to the admission test. It is contended that had the

petitioners known that the marks scored by them in the 10th Class and the

12th Class examination would also be counted for admission, they would

have worked therefor.

7. I do not find the said argument to be acceptable. A student is

expected to strive for academic excellence throughout the academic career

and cannot be heard to contend that he should have been informed when in

school that his marks in school would be relevant for admission to

institutions of higher learning. Moreover as aforesaid, there is nothing to

show that in the previous year the criteria was any different. The

petitioners are thus not found to have suffered/ been prejudiced in any

manner by late publication of admission criteria.

8. The Continuous Comprehensive Evaluation has now been accepted

after lengthy debate as best suited for judging merit in academics. Merely

because a student has shown a spark of brilliance in the admission test,

does not necessarily mean that he is the most meritorious student. I am

unable to find any error in the decision taken by the experts manning the

IIMs for including the 10th Class and the 12th Class marks in the admission

criteria. Moreover, it is common knowledge that whenever in competitive

examinations the fight for the last seat is between more than one candidate,

the selection is made on the basis of the marks scored in the

earlier/qualifying examination. It thus cannot be said that the petitioners

were totally unaware that scores in the school examination are also

relevant.

9. I also find that the petitioners even on their score cards stated to

have been issued on 12th January, 2011 were informed that IIMs

independently decide how to use the CAT scores on the basis of their own

selection policy. The petitioners were thus fully aware that the score in the

admission test was to be merely one of the criteria for selection and the

petitioners merely for the reason of scoring well in the admission test

cannot claim a right to admission.

10. The criteria though laid down after the admission test is found to

have been applied uniformly to all applicants and it is not the case of the

petitioners also that the criteria has been laid down to suit/benefit any face

or any particular class of applicants. There are no allegations of bias.

Thus, no case of arbitrariness or discrimination can be said to have been

made out.

11. The senior counsel for the petitioners has also contended that

though some of the IIMs in the previous years were giving weightage to

the work experience but the weightage given thereto is different by

different IIMs. I am of the view that merely because some other admission

criteria has been followed in the previous years would not estop the IIMs

from evolving from their experience and striving to have the best talent

available.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, no case for grant of interim relief is

made out. The applications for interim relief are dismissed.

13. However, this Court is a little concerned about the delay by the

IIMs in fixing the admission criteria and which can lead to uncertainty and

heart burn. For the said reason and since the matter affects a large number

of students, issue notice. Counsel for the respondent No.1 accepts notice.

The petitioner to serve the remaining respondents by all modes including

Dasti for 18th April, 2011.

CM Nos.2652/2011, 2656/2011, 2659/2011, 2661/2011 & 2663/2011 (for

exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 24, 2011 vk (f)