Sanwal Ram vs University Of Delhi & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 1409 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                 Date of decision: 10th March, 2011

+             W.P.(C) No.8151/2010 & CM No.21007/2010 (for directions)

%        SANWAL RAM                                                 ..... Petitioner
                                      Through:   Mr. S.C. Pathak & Mr. R.R. Jangu,
                                                 Advocates.

                                             Versus

         UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.              ... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal & Mr.
                               Aravind Varma, Advocates for DU.

                                             AND
+                                     W.P.(C) No.8521/2010

%        VARUN KAPUR                                                 ..... Petitioner
                                      Through:   Mr. J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
                                                 Dheeraj Sachdev. Adv.

                                             Versus

         UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR.              ... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal & Mr.
                               Aravind Varma, Advocates for DU.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?                           Yes


W.P.(C) No.8151/2010 &W.P.(C) No.8521/2010                                Page 1 of 12
 2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?            Yes

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported           Yes
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. These two writ petitions concern admission to the Bachelor of Law

(LLB) course of the respondent University for the academic year 2010-

2011. The eligibility criteria for admission to the said course as prescribed

in the Bulletin of Information 2010-2011 of the respondent University was

Graduate/Post Graduate Degree from the University of Delhi or any other

Indian or Foreign University recognized as equivalent by the University of

Delhi, with at least 50% marks or an equivalent grade point in the

aggregate in either of them. The admission to the said course was to be on

the basis of merit in the LLB entrance test. It was however provided that

the candidates appearing in the qualifying degree examination and who

were awaiting the result of such examination, were also eligible to appear

in the LLB Entrance Test, 2010 but their admission would depend on their

securing the minimum prescribed eligibility marks.

2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 8151/2010 was pursuing his Bachelor

of Business Administration (BBA) course from Jai Narain Vyas

University, Jodhpur, Rajasthan and was to complete the same in the year

2010. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8521/2010 was pursuing Bachelor of

Arts (BA) programme from a College affiliated to the respondent

University and was also to complete the same in the year 2010.

3. The petitioners in both the writ petitions appeared in the LLB

Entrance Test held by the respondent University. While the petitioner in

W.P.(C) No.8151/2010 secured the rank of 272 in the OBC Category to

which he belongs, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8521/2010 secured the rank

of 1149 in the unreserved category. Both petitioners were called for

counselling and were admitted to the LLB course, albeit provisionally

since their results of the qualifying examination had not been declared till

then.

4. The result of the BBA course aforesaid was declared by the Jai

Narain Vyas University in the last week of June 2010. The petitioner in

W.P.(C) No.8151/2010 had compartment in one of the papers of the three

year BBA course. He appeared in the supplementary examination held on

13th October, 2010, however the result of the said supplementary

examination was not declared.

5. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8521/2010 also in the result

declared, had not cleared one of the papers and was placed in compartment

in the said subject. It is his case that though the said compartment

examinations are held by the respondent University in the month of

September, 2010 so that the students if able to clear the same qualify for

the further education intended by them but owing to the Commonwealth

Games, 2010, the compartment examination was held only on 14 th

December, 2010.

6. The Bulletin of Information aforesaid provided that those

provisionally admitted were required to have their admission confirmed

not later than 15th October, 2010, failing which the provisional admission

was to stand automatically annulled. Such confirmation was to naturally

be by production of documents of having cleared the qualifying

examination with the requisite marks, though it is not so expressly

provided in the Bulletin. Both petitioners having not in the first instance

cleared the qualifying examination and having appeared in the

compartment/supplementary examination naturally could not have their

provisional admission confirmed. In the meanwhile, the first semester end

term examination of the LLB course to which they had been provisionally

admitted were to be held in December, 2010.

7. W.P.(C) No.8151/2010 was filed when the petitioner therein was

prevented from appearing in the end term examination averring that the

respondent University had allowed documents of eligibility to be submitted

till 25th November, 2010 and seeking direction to the respondent

University to accept the result of the petitioner therein of the qualifying

examination which had by then been declared and to allow the petitioner

therein to appear in the first semester end term examination. W.P.(C)

No.8151/2010 came up first before this Court on 6th December, 2010 when

in the Court the result of the petitioner therein of the qualifying

examination was perused and finding the petitioner therein to have cleared

the qualifying examination i.e. BBA course from Jai Narain Vyas

University, vide interim order, the said petitioner was permitted to take the

first semester end term examination, subject to further orders in the writ

petition.

8. The result of the compartment examination taken by the petitioner in

W.P.(C) No.8521/2010 was however not declared till the first semester end

term examination of LLB course. The said petitioner was therefore unable

to appear in the same. He filed the writ petition impugning the

cancellation of his provisional admission contending that the delay by the

respondent University itself in declaring the result of the compartment

examination should not lead to cancellation of his provisional admission.

Notice of the writ petition was issued and the said petitioner permitted to

continue to attend classes.

9. Pleadings have been completed and the counsels for the parties have

been heard.

10. The core question for decision in these writ petitions is, whether the

petitioners were required to clear their qualifying examinations in the

examinations already held and awaiting result whereof they were

provisionally admitted or they could clear the qualifying examination by

taking the compartment/supplementary examination also. There is no

categorical/unequivocal answer thereto in the Bulletin of Information

aforesaid.

11. The contention of the respondent University is that it was earlier not

admitting students till the result of their qualifying examination was

declared and till they were found to have cleared the same. It is contended

that the same however often led to delay in admission owing to the delay in

declaration of the result of the qualifying examination. It is yet further

contended that pursuant to the directions of the Division Bench of this

Court in S.N. Singh Vs. Union of India 106 (2003) DLT 329 and order

dated 5th December, 2006 in W.P.(C) No.7701/2005 titled S.N. Singh Vs.

Delhi University, and to enable those whose result of the qualifying

examination was awaited to attend all the classes of the semester, the

system of provisional admission was devised. Reference is also made to

judgment dated 4th October, 2010 of Division Bench of this Court in LPA

No.539/2010 titled Sukriti Upadhyay Vs. University of Delhi emphasizing

importance of attendance in LLB course. It is contended that however the

same cannot change the basic rule for admission to LLB course; the

candidate had to be a Graduate with the requisite marks. It is urged that if

the candidate had taken the qualifying examination prior to the date

prescribed for admission, the candidate would be eligible for admission

even if the result of the qualifying examination had not been declared till

the prescribed date for admission; however taking the qualifying

examination (as would be the case with respect to

supplementary/compartment examination) after the prescribed date for

admission to LLB course is not permissible.

12. Per contra, the senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)

No.8521/2010 has contended on the basis of Ordinance IX of the

respondent University that a candidate clearing the examination in a

compartment/supplementary examination is deemed to have passed the

qualifying examination in that year only and cannot be said to have passed

the qualifying examination in a subsequent year. He thus contends that the

result of the compartment examination would date back to the year in

which the qualifying examination had been taken.

13. Neither counsel has cited any judgment in this regard. However, I

find that the Division Bench of this Court in Sh. Prashant Srivastava Vs.

C.B.S.E. AIR 2001 Delhi 28, relying on the earlier judgment dated 7th

September, 1999 of another Division Bench in LPA No.385/1999 titled

Neha Kattyar Vs. C.B.S.E., held that once the supplementary examination

is passed, the result thereof would relate back to the first appearance in the

examination and the effect of that would be treated as if the candidate had

passed the examination on the date when the result was declared initially.

Of course, both the cases were with respect to class XII th examination and

not with respect to Delhi University.

14. I however find a Single Judge of this Court in Ankur Vahi Vs.

Union of India 2004 (72) DRJ 428 to have taken a different view.

Nevertheless another Single Judge in Deep Gupta Vs. Guri Gobind Singh

Indraprastha University MANU/DE/1187/2008 again held that the

candidates who cleared qualifying examination in first attempt and those

who cleared the same with a compartment, for the purposes of determining

eligibility cannot be discriminated.

15. In view of the aforesaid and further for the reason that the

respondent University in its Bulletin of Information did not so clearly

provide that those awaiting results of their qualifying examination are

required to clear the qualifying examination in the first instance only and

not in the compartment/supplementary examination, it is deemed expedient

to allow the petitioners to continue in the LLB course. A reference in this

regard may also be made to Jayant Sud Vs. The Faculty of Law AIR 1993

Delhi 25 where the petitioner even though securing less than 50% marks in

the eligibility examination was allowed to continue in the LLB course for

the reason of having cleared the admission test. Needless to state that the

petitioners herein also have cleared the admission test with good ranks.

Because of the ambiguity in the Bulletin of Information, the petitioners did

not take admission to any course/college to which they may have been

entitled to take admission and continued pursuing the course and it is now

deemed inequitable to waste their valuable year and to make them appear

again in the admission test in the ensuing year.

16. There is also some controversy as to whether the petitioners inspite

of succeeding, would be eligible to appear in the next semester end term

examination or not, for the reason of not having the requisite attendance.

To avoid any further litigation and in the absence of any clear stands with

respect thereto and for the reason of the uncertainty which had prevailed

with respect to the continuance of the petitioners in the course, it is deemed

expedient to clarify herein that subject to the petitioners diligently

attending the remaining classes of the term, they shall be entitled to appear

in the examination.

17. However, in view of the dissent expressed in Ankur Vahi (supra)

and further since this Bench had not deemed it necessary to attempt to deal

with the diverse opinion, it is deemed expedient to clarify that this

judgment shall not constitute a precedent and has been pronounced on its

own facts.

18. The counsel for the respondent University after close of hearing has

also invited attention to my judgment dated 20th August, 2010 in W.P.(C)

No.2475/2010 titled Anju Vs. University of Delhi contending that the same

covers the subject. However in that case the petitioner therein had

misrepresented facts to the University as well as to the Court and was

denied relief on that ground.

19. The writ petitions therefore succeed. The petitioners are declared to

be entitled to confirmation of their provisional admissions. The respondent

University is directed to confirm the provisional admissions of the

petitioners and to allow the petitioners to take ensuing semester end term

examination in accordance with its rules.

No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) MARCH 10, 2011 bs