Amit Chaudhary vs University Of Delhi & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 2390 Del

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 W.P.(C) No. 2892/2011

%                        Judgment delivered on: 4th May, 2011

     Amit Chaudhary                          ...... Petitioner.

           Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sharma, Adv.

                         versus

     University of Delhi and Ors..           ..... Respondents

                  Through: Mr.M.J.S.Rupal, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

1.   Whether the Reporters of local papers may
     be allowed to see the judgment?                         Yes

2.   To be referred to Reporter or not?                      Yes

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

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. Oral

*

1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the

orders dated 24.01.2011 and 10.03.2011 vide which the

petitioner has been detained from appearing in the LL.B

examinations.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the

present petition are that the petitioner took admission in the

LLB course of the Delhi University after securing 795 th rank

in the entrance examination. That the petitioner had done a

two year Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management

(PGDBM) from Wigan and Leigh College(UK) which he

claimed to be equivalent to an MBA degree. The Equivalence

Committee of the respondent-University did not recommend

the case of the petitioner and consequently the petitioner was

debarred from appearing in the Ist semester examinations in

November, 2010 and now in the IInd semester examinations.

Feeling aggrieved with the action of the respondents, the

petitioner has preferred the present petition.

3. Mr.Sanjeev Sharma, counsel appearing for the

petitioner submits that after completing his graduation in

B.Com (Hons.) the petitioner had appeared for the

Management Aptitude Test (MAT) conducted by All India

Management Association(AIMA) and after qualifying the

same he was admitted to Post Graduate Diploma in Business

Management (PGDBM) course to be undertaken by Wigan

and Leigh College(UK). Counsel further submits that the

petitioner was permitted to appear in the LL.B entrance test

examination conducted by the respondent No.2 on

30.05.2010 and the overall rank of the petitioner was 795 out

of the total seats of 2310 offered by the respondents for

admission in the LL.B course. Counsel further submits that

the petitioner was called for counseling by the admission

committee of the respondent No.2 on 16.06.2010 and was

directed to deposit the fees which he had deposited vide

receipt No.9488 on the same day. Counsel also submits that

in fact the petitioner had attended classes of the first

semester and his attendance in the first semester was 95%.

Counsel further submits that in the month of November,2010

the petitioner was asked to submit a representation with

regard to his course of PGDBM for consideration of the same

by the Equivalence Committee of the respondents. Counsel

also submits that to the shock and surprise of the petitioner

he was asked not to appear in the first semester

examinations of LL.B till a decision is taken by the

Equivalence Committee on his representation. Counsel

further submits that the petitioner made various

representations to the respondent No.4 for the consideration

of his case and it is only on 17.03.2011 that the petitioner

received a letter dated 10.03.2011 from the respondent No.3

informing the petitioner that the decision already taken by

the University vide their letter dated 24.01.2011 is

reiterated. Counsel further submits that after having received

the said communication dated 10.03.2011 the petitioner

made repeated visits to the office of the respondent No.1

besides sending several e-mails, but the petitioner was not

granted any opportunity of personal hearing to explain the

Equivalence of the said PGDBM to MBA.

4. The main argument taken by counsel for the

petitioner is that the petitioner never suppressed any fact

about his qualification from the respondents and had truly

and correctly disclosed about his possessing the qualification

of PGDBM course. Counsel further submits that the

Equivalence Committee should have given a personal hearing

to the petitioner for explaining and satisfying the members of

the said committee with regard to the equivalence of the said

two courses i.e. PGDBM with MBA. Counsel further submits

that the petitioner would lose one precious year of his career

if his admission in the LL.B course is not regularized.

5. Opposing the present petition, Mr.Rupal, learned

counsel appearing for the respondents submits that a

meeting of the Equivalence Committee of the Academic

Council of the University of Delhi was held on 03.01.2010

wherein the case of the present petitioner was also taken into

consideration. Counsel for the respondent has produced the

records of the Equivalence Committee wherein so far the

case of the petitioner is concerned, the Equivalence

Committee found that AIU has not accorded equivalence to

the Diploma level programme of Wigan and Leigh College i.e.

PGDBM and, therefore, the case of the petitioner was not

recommended for admission in the LL.B course. Counsel

further submits that vide letter dated 25.11.2010 the Deputy

Registrar (Academic) of the University of Delhi sent a letter

to the Dean of Faculty of Law apprising him about the

decision taken by the Equivalence Committee with regard to

the 19 cases of students seeking admission in law course

based on the various degrees/ diplomas from different

Universities/Institutes. Counsel also submits that every

admission given to a student in the Delhi University is a

provisional admission and, therefore, the petitioner cannot

claim that he was given any final admission in the said

course. Counsel also submits that the petitioner very well

knew in advance that the said PGDBM course was not

equivalent to an MBA course and, therefore, he had himself

taken the risk of seeking admission in the LL.B course based

on the said diploma level course. Counsel also submits that

this Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction will not

interfere in the decision taken by the Equivalence Committee

as the members of the said committee are experts in their

field and they are fully competent to take such academic

decisions based on their expertise. In support of his

argument, counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Guru Nanak Dev

University Vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal (2009)1 SCC 610

and the judgment dated 28th October, 2010 passed by this

Court in W.P.(C) No.6128/2008.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is not in dispute between the parties that the

petitioner passed his B.Com from Delhi University with third

division. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner got

admission in the Post Graduate Diploma in Business

Management being conducted by the Weigan and Leigh

College (UK) after appearing in the MAT examination.

Thereafter the petitioner applied for admission in LLB course

for which he appeared in an entrance examination and

secured 795th rank for the 2310 seats available. He was

called for counseling and on 16.6.2010 by the Admission

Committee of the respondent and was directed to deposit the

fees and was given admission in the evening batch of Faculty

of Law at Law Centre -II. Thereafter the petitioner started

attending classes of the I semester.

8. It is the case of the petitioner that the neither at

the time of application for the entrance exam nor at the time

of granting admission the petitioner was intimated that the

said PGDBM course is subject to scrutiny by the University .

It is also the grievance of the petitioner that there was not

even a whisper of any communication regarding the same

and the petitioner sincerely attended the classes of the I

semester securing 95% attendance and it was only on

25.11.10 that he received a call from the office of the

respondent no.2 directing him to submit a representation in

regard to the said PGDBM course. The counsel for the

petitioner also contended that the petitioner was not allowed

to appear in the I semester examination and that he still

attended the classes of the II semester beginning from

January, 2011. The contention of the counsel for the

petitioner is that it is only on 17.3.2011 that the petitioner

was intimated for the first time when he received a letter

dated 10.3.2011 that the decision which was taken by the

University vide letter dated 24.1.11 is reiterated, which as

per the counsel for the petitioner, was never received by him.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that there has been

violation of principles of natural justice as despite repeated

representations and efforts made by the petitioner he was not

granted the opportunity of personal hearing and now at this

belated stage when the petitioner has attended the classes of

both the semesters, the petitioner cannot be denied

admission as he would lose one precious academic year.

9. The learned counsel for the respondents on the

other hand contends that the admissions granted by the

University to all the students are provisional admissions and

it is not that the petitioner is being singled out. The counsel

for the respondent further contends that the PGDBM course

undertaken by the petitioner at Wigan and Leigh College(UK)

was not equivalent to the MBA course as administered by the

respondent University and this was very well intimated to the

petitioner. The counsel submits that the Dean of Faculty of

Law was intimated of the decision of the Equivalence

Committee on 25.11.2010 after the meeting had taken place

on 3.11.10, which was also intimated to the petitioner. The

counsel submits that the petitioner is suppressing material

facts from the court that the letter dated 10.3.2011 was in

reply to the request of the petitioner to reconsider his case

which had been once rejected and therefore the petitioner

cannot now claim that he only came to know about the said

decision of the respondents in March , 2011.

10. The counsel for the respondent produced the

minutes of the meeting of the Equivalence Committee held on

3.11.10 in which at page two it was stated that:

"4. The Committee considered all the 19 cases of equivalence received from the Faculty of Law who had been provisionally admitted to law courses based on the various degrees/diplomas from the different Universities/Institutes, submitted by the candidates.

The Committee considered the cases of the Faculty of Law and also the views of the AIU contained in the letter No. EV/IV (33)/2010/211087 dated 30.09.2010. The decision of the Equivalence Committee is noted against each case in the Annexure-I."

11. In the Annexure at serial no. 9 is the case of the

petitioner with the remarks that the AIU has not accorded

equivalence to the Diploma level programme of Wigan and

Leigh College and hence not recommended. This decision

was conveyed by the Deputy Registrar (Academic) to the

Dean of Faculty of Law, Campus Law Centre vide letter dated

25.11.2010. The contention of the petitioner that this

decision of the Equivalence Committee was not

communicated to him cannot be given any credence as the

petitioner has not shown or alleged any malafide on the part

of the respondent University to be inimical towards the

petitioner. The petitioner has not disputed the fact that the

University had intimated him on 26.11.2010 that he would

not be able to appear in the exams of the I semester and that

goes to show that the petitioner had been made aware of the

said decision on 26.11.2010 itself.

12. Coming to the subsequent letters, it would be

clear from the letter dated 12.1.2011(placed on record at

page 33 of the paperbook) ,of the Association of Indian

Universities (AIU) addressed to the petitioner whereby it is

stated that the AIU has not accorded equivalence to the

Diploma awarded by Wigan and Leigh College. Further the

letter dated 24.1.2011 addressed to the petitioner by the

Deputy Registrar is reproduced below:

"......Dear Sir,

This has reference to your request dated 18.01.2010, to reconsider the case of the Equivalence Committee, in the light of the Association of Indian Universities letter No. EV/II(281)2011/1769 dated January 12,2011.

I am directed to inform you that the decision already taken in your case by the University on the recommendations of the Equivalence committee of the Academic Council stands."

13. It is crystal clear from the above letter that the

petitioner had written to the respondent university for re-

consideration of his case in the Equivalence Committee on

18.1.2010 which would mean that he was aware of the

decision of the Equivalence Committee on the said date of

making the said representation. The succeeding letter dated

10.3.2011 addressed to the petitioner states as:

"....Dear Sir,

Please refer to your letter dated 28.02.2010, on the subject cited above.

In this connection, I am to inform you that the matter has been re-examined at the appropriate level of the University. Accordingly, the decision already communicated to you vide letter No. Aca.I/Equi/2010/21 dated 24.01.2011, is reiterated.

The letter referred to above, received back undelivered from the postal department is enclosed."

14. Hence in the face of the clear intimations

addressed to the petitioner, it cannot be believed in any

circumstance that the petitioner was not intimated about the

said decision and in fact the representations of the petitioner

were for reconsideration and reexamining of his case by the

Equivalence Committee.

15. Even otherwise, there can be no departure from

the fact that equivalence is a technical matter and is the

domain of the experts in the field to scrutinize and give a

finding as to whether a course pursued by a student from a

different university or institute is equivalent to the same

course administered by the university in which admission is

sought. The Apex court in the case of Guru Nanak Dev

University vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal (supra) held that:

"Equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. The first respondent has not been able to produce any document to show that appellant university has recognized the M.A. English (OUS) of Annamalai University through distance education as equivalent to M.A. of appellant university. Thus it has to be held that first respondent does not

fulfil the eligibility criterion of the appellant university for admission to three year law course.

14. The first respondent made a faint attempt to contend that the distance education system includes `correspondence courses' and therefore recognition of M.A. (correspondence course) as equivalent to M.A. course of appellant University, would amount to recognition of M.A. - OUS (distance education) course, as an equivalent. For this purpose, he relied upon the definition of "distance education system" in Section 2(e) of Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985. But there is nothing to show that Annamalai University has treated correspondence course and OUS (distance education) course as the same. What is more important is that the appellant university does not wish to treat correspondence course and Distance Education Course as being the same. That is a matter of policy. Courts will not interfere with the said policy relating to an academic matter."

16. This was further reiterated in the recent judgment

of this court in WPC No. 6128/2008 titled Ajay Kumar vs.

University of Delhi decided on 28.11.2010 holding that

there is nothing wrong in a University providing that

recognition by it of Degrees of other University shall be

subject to the decision of its Equivalence Committee and

without the same, the University may not be able to maintain

its academic standards.

17. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner

that the petitioner was not granted a personal hearing and

had an opportunity been given , he would have convinced and

satisfied the committee that the PGDBM course is equivalent

to an MBA degree, does not cut any ice. The University as

governed by the Statute 8 clause (ix) has the power to

recognize the Diploma and Degrees of other Universities and

Institutions and to determine their correspondence value in

relation to the Diplomas and Degrees of the Delhi University.

The Committee has its own procedure whereby the syllabus

of the course undertaken is examined to see as to whether it

is at par with the course with which the equivalence is

sought. The question of personal hearing does not arise and

the rules of natural justice must not be stretched too far and

should not be invoked merely to avoid adverse consequences.

Hence, there has not been any violation of rules of natural

justice in the present case.

18. As the petitioner was not allowed to undertake the

I semester examination, it was an admonition enough for him

to undertake the necessary steps to save his academic year.

However, this court of the clear view that the University

cannot be directed to violate its own rules and regulations on

the ground of misplaced sympathy.

19. In the light of the above discussion, this court does

not find any merit in the present petition and the same is

hereby dismissed.

May 04, 2011                         KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
dc