Ms. Meenakshi vs University Of Delhi & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 301 Del

             *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                           Date of decision: 19th January, 2011.

+                       W.P.(C) 13513/2009 & CM No.15058/2009 (for stay)

%        MS. MEENAKSHI                                           ..... Petitioner
                     Through:               Mr. K. Venkatraman, Adv.

                                      Versus

         UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.               ..... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Adv. for R-
                               1, 2 & 5.

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 having failed to secure admission in the academic year

2009-2010 in the Doctorate of Philosophy (Ph.D.) programme in the subject

of Hindi of the respondent University and her representations in this regard

having been rejected by the Dean (Research) and Deputy Registrar, Colleges

respectively of the respondent University, this writ petition was filed

challenging the orders of rejection of representation and claiming direction

to the respondent University to admit the petitioner in the academic year

2009-2010. Though the writ petition came up before this Court first on 2 nd

December, 2009 and on 9th December, 2009 notice was issued but on the

contention of the counsel for the respondent University appearing on

advance notice that the petitioner had concealed facts, no interim relief was

granted to the petitioner. Since then the pleadings have been completed.

The counsels have been heard.

2. The counsel for the petitioner has raised only two arguments qua the

defective admission process in the year 2009-2010. Firstly, it is contended

that the respondents while making admission in the year 2009-2010 erred in

giving weightage of 10 marks to those candidates who had cleared the

National Eligibility Test (NET). It is argued that if the said weightage had

not been given, the petitioner would have been amongst the admitted

students. Secondly, it is contended that the case of the petitioner has not

been considered under Clause-6 of Ordinance VI-B of the respondent

University.

3. Qua the first of the aforesaid grounds, it is admitted position that the

Ordinance VI-B (supra) which came into force with effect from 29th July,

2008 materially altered the admission criteria for the Ph.D. programme from

as existed earlier. The admission to the Ph.D. programme was in the said

Ordinance prescribed through an entrance examination or interview and the

Departmental Research Committees (DRC) were empowered to lay down

further admission criteria in this regard. The DRC for Department of Hindi

while laying down the criteria for admission to Ph.D. in Hindi for the

academic year 2008-2009 (in which the petitioner had not applied) vide

Minutes dated 6th September, 2008 at page 104 of the paper book provided

for weightage of 10 marks to be given to NET qualified candidates. It is

however the case of the petitioner that notwithstanding the same, the

respondent University while making the admissions in the academic year

2008-2009 did not give any weightage of 10 marks to NET qualified

candidates. The counsel for the petitioner along with rejoinder has filed a

computation showing that while computing the merit list of the students

admitted in the year 2008-2009, no weightage of 10 marks to those who had

qualified NET, was given.

4. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the DRC of Department

of Hindi in meeting held on 24th July, 2009 for laying down the criteria for

admissions for the year 2009-2010 (in which the petitioner had applied),

decided to follow the same procedure as prescribed in the year 2008-2009.

In the Minutes of meeting dated 24th July, 2009 it was also again expressly

mentioned that weightage of 10 marks shall be given to the NET qualified

candidates.

5. It is not in dispute that while making the admissions for the academic

year 2009-2010, the respondent University did give weightage of 10 marks

to NET qualified candidates. The petitioner being not NET qualified, was

not given the said weightage. Upon the merit list being drawn up, the

petitioner though stated to have got high marks in interview, but without the

weightage aforesaid, did not make it to the merit list and was accordingly

not admitted.

6. The contention of the petitioner is that since inspite of DRC providing

for weightage of 10 marks to NET qualified candidates in the year 2008-

2009 also, no such weightage was given and further since the same criteria

as of 2008-2009 was agreed to be followed in 2009-2010 also, the

respondent University in the year 2009-2010 also ought not to have given

the weightage to NET qualified candidates; and if such weightage had not

been given, the petitioner would have been entitled to admission.

7. I am unable to agree.

8. The DRC in the year 2008-2009 had also provided for weightage of

10 marks to be given to the NET qualified candidates. The recommendations

of DRC are binding. The non giving of such weightage while making

admissions in the year 2008-2009, is clearly erroneous. However, the

admissions of that year are not in challenge before this Court. The

candidates who would have been wrongly admitted, are not even before this

Court.

9. However, the error if any committed in the year 2008-2009 cannot be

permitted to be perpetuated in the year 2009-2010 with which the petitioner

is concerned. When the DRC in the meeting of 24 th July, 2009 provided for

the same norms for admission as in the year 2008-2009 to be followed, it

was obviously referring to the norms as approved by it in the year 2008-

2009 and the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the reference

should be deemed to be to the norms as followed in making the admissions

and not as prescribed, cannot be accepted. Allowing the same would

tantamount to this Court interfering with the decision of the DRC and which

in any case is not under challenge in these proceedings.

10. The respondent University along with counter affidavit has filed the

notice dated 27th July, 2009 stated to have been put up at the time of

admission in the year 2009-2010 which clearly provided for and informed

the students that weightage of 10 marks shall be given to NET qualified

candidates. It was in fact on the plea of suppression of the document that

the interim relief was denied to the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner

of course denies that the said notice was put up or was intimated to the

applicant/petitioner.

11. Be that as it may, the admissions in the year 2009-2010 being in

accordance with the directives of the DRC cannot be found fault with on this

ground.

12. The second challenge by the counsel for the petitioner is that while

Clause-6 of Ordinance VI-B provided that students who were initially

registered for the Master of Philosophy (M.Phil.) and who obtain a score of

60% or more marks in Part-I examination of the M.Phil. programme (which

is stated to be of two years) would be eligible for admission to Ph.D. without

completing their M.Phil. on the specific recommendation of the DRC; on the

basis thereof the counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner

had more than 60% marks in her M.Phil. and ought to have been considered

at least for admission under the said Clause.

13. The counsel for the respondent University has per contra contended

that the petitioner was not covered under the said Clause. On enquiry, it is

informed that the petitioner had before the admissions for the Ph.D. in the

academic year 2009-2010 completed her two year M.Phil. programme. The

counsel for the respondent University has contended that Clause-6 enables

those who had done only first year of M.Phil. having more than 60% marks

in the first year, to abandon the second year M.Phil. and get admission

directly in Ph.D. It is also informed that prior to Ordinance VI-B, there was

no such window and completing M.Phil. was necessary for admission to

Ph.D. He has thus contended that the petitioner having completed her

M.Phil., could not be considered for admission under the said provision.

14. The counsel for the petitioner has rejoined by contending that the

petitioner had more than 60% marks in first as well as second year of

M.Phil. and there is no reason for depriving her of consideration under

Clause-6.

15. I am afraid, the said argument also cannot be accepted. Clause-6 is

clearly applicable to only those who, at the time of seeking admission to

Ph.D., were still to do the second year of M.Phil, and if were to be held to

apply to even those who had completed M.Phil., then the same would create

two streams of admission i.e. under Clause 4A & 4B on the one hand and

under Clause 6 on the other hand and which cannot be permitted. Thus no

merit is found in the said contention also.

16. The counsel for the petitioner has at this stage also urged that the

respondent University is not following a uniform process, while DRCs of

some departments are giving weightage of 5 marks for NET eligible

candidates, others are given the weightage of 10 marks.

17. The Ordinance of the respondent University having left the matter to

the DRC and the different departments being governed by their respective

DRCs, are found entitled to fix their own criteria. Even otherwise,

admittedly the same does not form the part of the writ petition, though the

said ground is taken in the additional affidavit filed.

18. The counsel for the respondent University has also informed that the

petitioner had applied for admission in the academic year 2010-2011 also

but did not make in the merit list.

19. I am also of the opinion that the petitioner having claimed admission

in the year 2009-2010, in any case could not, even if had succeeded on

merits, have been granted admission in the current year, if had been wrongly

denied admission in the year 2009-2010.

The writ petition is therefore dismissed but with no order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 19th January, 2011/bs.