Palak Kaur Arora vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 164 Del

              *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Date of decision: 12th January, 2011

+                   W.P.(C) 7155/2010 & CM No.14206/2010 (for stay).

PALAK KAUR ARORA                                                   ..... Petitioner
                                 Through:    Mr. I.S. Alag, Mr. J.S. Lamba, Mr.
                                             R.S. Bisht & Mr. Rishabh Bhutani,
                                             Advocates.

                                      versus

GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA
UNIVERSITY & ANR.                              ..... Respondents
                   Through: Mr.    Mukul        Talwar      with
                            Mr.   Sradhananda         Mohapatra,
                            Advocates for R-1.
                            Mr. Raj Kamal, Advocate for R-
                            2&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 had sought admission in the B.Tech. Programme in the

Sikh Minority Category in the respondent no.2 Institute, a Minority

Educational Institution, affiliated to the respondent no.1 University. It was a

term for admission in the said category that the applicants were required to

produce the Minority Certificate issued by the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara

Management Committee. The case of the petitioner is that though the

petitioner produced such a Certificate but was not granted admission for the

reason of minor discrepancy in her name; while the name of the petitioner in

the CBSE certificate is Palak Arora, in the Minority Certificate issued by the

Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee, the name was Palak Kaur

Arora. The petitioner claiming that there is still a vacancy in the said

Category, seeks a direction for admission.

2. When the petition came up first before this Court on 26 th October,

2010, the counsel for the respondent no.1 University appearing on advance

notice informed that the respondent no.1 University had received a letter

dated 17th August, 2010 from the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management

Committee asking the respondent no.1 University to treat as withdrawn, the

certificates issued to those candidates whose name in the CBSE documents

did not have Singh/Kaur. It was informed that it was in view of the said

communication that the petitioner and 30 other similarly placed students

were not granted admission.

3. In view of the aforesaid statement of the counsel for the respondent

no.1 University, the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee was

impleaded as respondent no.3 and notice was issued to them.

4. The counsel for the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee on

15th November, 2010 informed that on the basis of the averments in the

petition they were satisfied that the petitioner belongs to the minority

community and gave 'No Objection' to the petitioner being granted

admission. The matter was adjourned on that date to enable the counsels to

verify whether there was still a vacant seat in the respondent no.2 Institute.

5. On 16th November, 2010, it was informed that one seat in B.Tech

(Electronic & Communication) in the evening shift was available in the

respondent no.2 Institute. The petitioner expressed willingness to take

admission in the said seat. The counsel for the respondent no.1 University

however contended that the said seat would have to be offered as per the

merit list of the minority community, first to the students having better

marks/rank that that of the petitioner.

6. The counsel for the respondent no.1 University was on 26 th

November, 2010 asked to obtain instructions as to whether it was at all

possible for anyone to join with effect from the semester starting in January,

2011.

7. The matter was thereafter adjourned from time to time awaiting

judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in intra court appeal, as to

whether relief should be granted to the petitioner approaching the Court only

or the vacant seat should be put to re-counseling to all. The counsel for the

respondent no.1 University has today handed over the judgment dated 7 th

January, 2011 of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.820/2010

titled GGSIP University v. Dhruv Singhal where the Division Bench has

while reversing the order of this Bench granting admission to the petitioner

in that case knocking at the doors of the Court, held that the vacant seat has

to be put to re-counseling to all eligible candidates; however since the

academic session had already begun, the Division Bench instead of directing

the University to conduct re-counseling of the seat, directed the University

to follow the principles laid down in the judgment with effect from the next

academic year. The counsel for the respondent no.1 University on the basis

of the said judgment has contended that not only can no relief be granted to

the petitioner and as per the judgment the vacant seat will have to be put to

re-counseling but that also is not permissible in the current year and thus the

petition has to be dismissed.

8. It is further informed that even if re-counseling were to be ordered

and the most eligible candidate admitted to the semester starting from

January, 2011, the said student would still not be entitled to be promoted to

the second year because the rule of promotion requires minimum 50% credit

in the examination of the two semesters of the first year. It is informed that

the maximum credits in the papers of the first semester is 28 and of the

second semester is 27 and thus even if the maximum credits were to be

achieved by the candidate so admitted in the examination to be held in May,

2011, the student would not be entitled to promotion to the second year and

would have to necessarily repeat the remaining papers of the first year.

9. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that the seat should be

put to re-counseling and the eligible candidate admitted. He also contends

that before the Division Bench in Dhruv Singhal (supra), no request for re-

counseling was made.

10. Had the Division Bench in Dhruv Singhal been of the opinion that

the seat should have been put to re-counseling for making admission to the

Academic Year 2010-2011, the said order would have followed in view of

the finding to the said effect. However the Division Bench deemed it

appropriate to direct the University to make admissions from the next

academic year only.

11. As aforesaid, one of the semesters of the first year to which the

petitioner had sought admission is already over. The blame for the situation

in which the petitioner today is, cannot be put on the respondent no.1

University as it was bound by the directives of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara

Management Committee. The curriculum of the respondent no.1 University

having prescribed for a student admitted to the first year to undergo two

semesters, it is now not deemed expedient to direct the respondent no.1

University to conduct re-counseling for the vacant seat and to make

admission thereto. The same would tantamount to this Court interfering in

the admission process and in the decision of the respondent no.1 University

in academic matters and which the courts have repeatedly held should not be

lightly interfered with.

13. In the circumstances even though the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara

Management Committee has retracted its objection owing whereto the

petitioner could not be admitted but owing to halt the academic year being

over, no relief can be granted.

The petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) JANUARY 12, 2011 pp..