Delhi High Court
S. Balachandran vs Jawaharlal Nehru University & Anr on 12 January, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 12th January, 2011.
+ W.P.(C) 7404/2010 & CM No.14668/2010 (for interim directions)
% S. BALACHANDRAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. V. Elanchezhiyan, Adv.
Versus
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY & ANR .... Respondents
Through: Mr. M.J.S. Rupal & Mr. Aravind
Varma, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Ashish Kumar Srivastava & Mr.
Jatan Singh, Advocates for R-2.
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 counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to hand over rejoinder
to the counter affidavit of the respondent no.1 University in the Court. Even
though there is no justification for the same, time having been taken on 6 th
December, 2010 to file the rejoinder, in the interest of justice, the same is
allowed and the rejoinder is taken on record.
2. The petitioner claiming to be belonging to Other Backward Castes
(OBC) category had applied for admission to the respondent no.1 University
in M.A (Economics) course and had appeared for an entrance examination
for the same. Upon the petitioner being not admitted, the petitioner first
filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madras. The respondent no.1
University filed a counter affidavit in the High Court of Madras where it
was stated that the petitioner did not qualify for admission as he had secured
only 5.5 marks out of 100 in M.A. (Economics) paper and 6 marks out of
100 in M.A. (Economics with specialization in world economy). It was
further stated that for OBC candidates to be eligible for admission, the
minimum eligibility was at least 27 marks out of 100 and the petitioner was
thus in any case not entitled to admission. The respondent no.1 University
in the said counter affidavit filed in the High Court of Madras also contested
the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court.
3. The Madras High Court being of the view that it has no territorial
jurisdiction, ultimately allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition
with liberty to approach this Court.
4. The present writ petition was filed on the basis of the judgment dated
7th September, 2010 of this Court in W.P.(C) No.4857/2010 titled Apurva
Vs. Union of India. It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent
no.1 University had denied admission to the petitioner in violation of the
principles laid down in Apurva (supra). Notice of the writ petition was
issued. The respondent no.1 University in counter affidavit filed has again
pleaded that irrespective of Apurva, the petitioner having not secured
minimum requisite marks in the admission text, is not entitled to admission.
5. The counsel for the petitioner has today argued that the respondent
no.1 University was not entitled to lay down the minimum eligibility and the
same could have been done only by the University Grants Commission
(UGC). It is stated that thus the respondent no.1 University could not have
denied admission to the petitioner for the reason of the petitioner in the
entrance test securing lesser marks than the eligibility fixed by the
respondent no.1 University for OBC candidates. The counsel for the
respondent no.1 University has contended that no such ground has been
taken in the writ petition.
6. The counsel for the petitioner has been unable to show from the writ
petition, any such ground or challenge. He however states that the said
pleas have been taken in the rejoinder handed over today.
7. The petitioner was fully aware of the said plea of the respondent no.1
University which was also taken in the counter affidavit filed in the Madras
High Court. If the petitioner was desirous of challenging the said aspect, the
said challenge ought to have been made in the writ petition and cannot be
entertained on the basis of a plea taken in the rejoinder. Moreover, the
petitioner participated in the entrance test with knowledge of the said
condition and cannot be now heard to challenge the same. Even otherwise,
it is preposterous to suggest that the petitioner with such poor grades in the
entrance examination shall be entitled to the admission as claimed.
8. The counsel next contended that the petitioner has been wrongly
marked in the admission test, as would be apparent from the high marks
obtained by him in graduation from Tamil Nadu University. Again no such
challenge has been made in the writ petition.
9. Yet another grievance made in the writ petition is of non-declaration
by the respondent no.1 University of the marks of each candidates in the
entrance test; it is contended that the respondent no.1 University merely
publishes the list of students admitted.
10. The respondent no.1 University in its counter affidavit has disclosed
that owing to a large number of students who appear in the entrance test, the
logistics do not permit the declaration of the result with marks of each and
every candidate but the same are provided on demand.
11. In the prevalent days of transparency and when results are declared on
the website, it is desirable that the respondent no.1 University declares the
marks of all the students appearing in the entrance test. The respondent no.1
University is directed to place the matter before the appropriate authorities
for re-consideration on the said aspect.
12. Save for the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is without merit and
is dismissed but with no order as to costs.
Copy of this order be given Dasti under the signature of the Court
Master.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
9th December, 2010
bs
