Delhi High Court
Neha Singhal vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ... on 9 March, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 9th March, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 1552/2011 & CM No.3294/2011 (for interim relief).
NEHA SINGHAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.Singhvi with Mr. Sunil K.
Nair, Advocates.
versus
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA
UNIVERSITY AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar & Mr. S.
Mohapatra, Advocates for R-1.
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 was a student of PDM College of Engineering for
Women, Bahadurgarh affiliated to the M.D. University, Rohtak and after
completing the first year of the B.Tech. course applied for migration to
Bhagwan Parshuram Institute of Technology (respondent no.2) affiliated to
the respondent no.1 University. No objection Certificates of both Institutes
were produced.
2. The respondent no.1 University vide letter dated 30th September,
2010 approved the request for migration for the Session 2010-2011,
subject to submission within a fortnight from the date of issue of the letter,
inter alia mark sheet of XIIth class with Minimum aggregate of 55% marks
in PCM. It was also provided in the said letter that any failure on the part
of the petitioner to submit the documents shall result in automatic
withdrawal of this "offer".
3. The case of the petitioner is that she in pursuance to the letter
(supra) submitted the documents and was allowed to join classes with the
respondent no.2 Institute and was issued enrolment number by the
respondent no.1 University and was also allowed to take practical
examinations for the third semester end term examination but was not
issued the Admit Card for the theory examinations and thus could not
appear in the same. It is stated that it was then that the petitioner learnt that
the respondent no.1 University had vide letter dated 16th December, 2010
cancelled the earlier letter approving migration, for the reason of the
petitioner having not submitted the requisite documents showing
fulfillment eligibility criteria for admission.
4. The petitioner admits that she does not fulfill the eligibility criteria
in as much as she had only 54.3% marks in XIIth class instead of 55%
marks required by the respondent. This petition has however been filed
averring that the respondent no.1 University after issuing enrolment
number to the petitioner is estopped from cancelling the migration.
5. The letter dated 27th December, 2010 of the respondent no.2 Institute
to the respondent no.1 University filed by the petitioner herself, records
that the letter dated 30th September, 2010 (supra) was received by the
respondent no.2 Institute only on 18th November, 2010 and the petitioner
had submitted the requisite documents on 30th November, 2010 and which
the respondent no.2 Institute claims to have forwarded to the respondent
no.1 University.
6. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner having
already left the PDM College cannot be left in a lurch and the present case
is a hard case wherein for humanitarian and sympathetic grounds this
Court should intervene and direct the respondent no.1 University to
continue with the petitioner.
7. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent no.1 University appearing
on advance notice has urged that the prospectus for admission for the
relevant academic year prohibited rounding off qua 55% aforesaid. With
respect to the issuance of the enrolment number he states that the said
enrolment number was issued on a temporary basis on the representation of
the respondent no.2 Institute.
8. The Supreme Court in Mahatma Gandhi University v. Gis Jose
(2008) 17 SCC 611 has held that a candidate who is not eligible for
admission cannot be granted admission by the Courts on sympathetic and
humanitarian grounds if not meeting the eligibility criteria and even if
owing to mistake of any official of the respondent no.1 University the said
candidate has been issued Admit card for any examination.
9. I have in Tarun Kapoor v. Union of India MANU/DE/3749/2010
on 1st December, 2010 held that rounding off cannot be permitted where
the prospectus contains a prohibition with respect thereto.
10. I find the version of the petitioner and the respondent no.2 Institute
that the letter dated 30th September, 2010 was not received till 18th
November, 2010 to be unbelievable.
11. The letter dated 30th September, 2010 was a conditional letter and
without the respondent no.1 University unconditionally allowing the
migration, neither the petitioner nor the respondent no.2 Institute could
have presumed that migration had been permitted. It was for the petitioner
and the respondent no.2 Institute to even if had not received the letter till
30th September, 2010 to have pursued the respondent no.1 University and
could not sit content in making the application in as much as a mere
submission of the application is no assurance of the migration being
allowed.
12. The letter dated 30th September, 2010 of the respondent no.1
University was otherwise unequivocal. The migration was subject to the
petitioner fulfilling the eligibility prescribed therein. The petitioner was
aware that she did not fulfill the eligibility criteria. Notwithstanding the
same if the petitioner left the earlier College or continued to pursue the
studies in the respondent no.2 Institute, the petitioner has herself to blame
for the same and cannot be granted any relief.
13. The counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the petitioner
has paid hefty amount of fees to the respondent no.2 Institute. If the
petitioner has been misguided by the respondent no.2 Institute, the
petitioner would be entitled to claim damages. However need is not felt to
issue notice of this petition to the respondent no.2 Institute on the said
aspect only, the said dispute being not entertainable in the writ jurisdiction.
14. The respondent no.1 University to however issue guidelines to all its
affiliates for ensuring that no fee is received from students seeking
migration till unconditional approval for migration is granted. The
respondent no.1 University to also consider modifying the format of the
letter approving the migration in as much as it is felt that the same is
fraught with the possibility of misleading the students. No approval for
migration ought to be granted till the documents are submitted and the
respondent no.1 University is satisfied as to eligibility.
15. Save for the aforesaid directions, the petition is dismissed with no
order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
MARCH 9th , 2011/pp..
