Ritu Vats vs Vice Chancellor, University Of ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 3175 Del

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                        Judgment delivered on: 07.07.2011


                             W.P.(C) No. 4675/2011


Ritu Vats                                    ......Petitioner

                Through: Mrs. Santosh Singh,
                             Mr. J.S.Marahatta and Mr. Rakesh
                             K Mudgal, Advs.

                                  Vs.

Vice Chancellor
University of Delhi                          ......Respondents

                Through:          Ms.Maninder Acharya, Adv.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
    be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
     in the Digest?


KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.Oral:
*

1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to direct

the respondent to give admission to the petitioner under the

'reservation for defence category' under the clause 'wards of

ex-servicemen' in the LLB course.

2. Facts of the case shorn of unnecessary details are

that the petitioner herein is a daughter of an ex-serviceman of

the forces and had applied for admission in LLB three years

course in the respondent Delhi University under 5%

reservation for wards of defence personnel as per Note 9 for

admission to LLB Course in the Information Bulletin of the

respondent University. As per the petitioner, in the entrance

examination she has secured 301 marks and 1415 position in

the general category and 17th position in the reserved

category. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner

was not called for interview for admission in the said course

despite her 17th position in the reserved category as she was

told that she was not eligible for the admission because she

did not fit into any of the categories of the reserved category

for defence personnel. Feeling aggrieved with the action of the

respondent university, the petitioner has approached the writ

court for relief.

3. Ms. Maninder Acharya, learned counsel for the

respondent has contended that the petitioner has made

misrepresentation by placing on record the extract alleged to

have been taken from the Information Bulletin of the Delhi

University concerning the admission in the three years LLB

course 2011 wherein under Note 9, clause (v) the wards of

ex-servicemen and under clause (vi) wards of service

personnel can also be categorized in the priority list under

the reserved category for wards of armed forces. Ms.

Acharya has produced a copy of the original Information

Bulletin and in Note 9 of the said bulletin there is no such

category relating to the wards of ex-servicemen and wards of

serving personnel. Ms. Acharya submits that the present

petitioner who is a ward of ex-serviceman cannot be granted

any priority in terms of the said reserved category for wards of

armed forces.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

petitioner has submitted that the relevant extract has been

taken from the Information Bulletin of respondent university

and clause (vi) of Note 9 of the same does cover the case of

all the wards of ex-servicemen personnel but wrongly the

university has excluded the two categories i.e. wards of ex-

servicemen and wards of serving personnel. Counsel also

submits that the said criterion has been laid down by the

university in terms of the directions given by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the matter of Islamic Academy of Education

& Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors (W.P.(C) No. 350/1993) .

Counsel has also placed reliance on the order dated 10.2.2004

issued by the Department of Training & Technical Education,

Government of Delhi wherein the reservation under the

defence category has been made strictly in terms of the

directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

abovementioned judgment.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner is the daughter of an ex-

serviceman and she is seeking admission in three years LLB

course in Delhi University. It is not in dispute that the

petitioner has appeared in the entrance examination

conducted by the respondent University wherein she has

secured 1415 position in the general category and 17 th

position in the reserved category. It is the case of the

petitioner that the total number of seats in the reserved

category meant for the defence are 135 and the petitioner

having secured 17th rank is entitled to admission. It is also

the case of the petitioner that on 4.7.2011 she was shocked to

know that she was not eligible for admission in the said

course because she did not fit into any of the categories of

the reserved quota for defence personnel. The petitioner in

prayer para has sought directions to direct the respondents to

give her admission under the clause 'wards of ex-servicemen'

under reservation for defence category.

7. A perusal of the said copy of the Information

Bulletin clearly shows that there is no such category which

can cater to the wards of ex-servicemen. It is only the wards

of ex-servicemen and serving personnel who have received

gallantry award that have been categorized in the order of

preference under clause (v) of Note 9 of the Information

Bulletin of the University of Delhi. For better appreciation of

the facts, Note 9 is reproduced as under:

"(9) The Widows/Wards of defence personnel (CW) shall be admitted as per 5 priorities listed below:-

(i) Widows/Wards of Defence personnel killed in action;

(ii) Wards of serving personnel and ex- servicemen disabled in action;

(iii) Widows/Wards of Defence personnel who died in peace time with death attributable to military service;

(iv) Wards of Defence personnel disabled in peace time with disability attributable to military service;

(v) Wards of Ex-servicemen Personnel and serving personnel of the Defence/Armed Forces and all Police Forces who are in receipt of Gallantry Awards."

8. Evidently, the said copy of the extract as placed on

record by the petitioner as Annexure P-4 at pages 18-19 of the

paper book are not the same as the said Note relating to the

reservation for armed forces reproduced above. Similarly, in

para 2 of the petition the petitioner has placed reliance on

the said non-existing clause. So far the reliance placed by

the counsel for the petitioner on the Office Order issued by the

Government of Delhi, Department of Training and Technical

Education is concerned, the same cannot be of any help to the

case of the petitioner as in Note 9 of the Information Bulletin

of the respondent Delhi University, no provision has been

made for the wards of ex-servicemen. In the absence of any

such category, no relief can be granted by this court in favour

of the petitioner. In fact the petitioner should have been

careful enough to have filed correct copy of the said extract

instead of producing an incorrect copy. The petitioner has

also been negligent as she has also reproduced incorrect

extract in the petition as well.

9. In the light of the above, there is no merit in the

present petition, accordingly the same is hereby dismissed.

This court is not imposing any cost on the petitioner

considering the fact that she is a student but she is warned to

remain careful in future.

July 07, 2011                         KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
mg