Deepak Saraswat & Anr. vs Gnct Delhi & Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4465 Del

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                              Judgment delivered on: 13.09.2011

                       +W.P.(C) No.4957/2011


Deepak Saraswat & Anr.                   ......Petitioner

                    Through: Mr. Anoop Kumar Srivastava, Adv.

                              Vs.

GNCT Delhi & Anr.                       ......Respondents

Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar, Adv. for GGSIPU Mr. N.Chaudhary,Adv.for respondent no.1

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 in the Digest? Yes

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.Oral : *

1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to direct the

respondents to give admission to the petitioners in the Ph.D

programme in the University School of Information

Technology.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the petition

relevant for deciding the present petition are that the

petitioners applied for admission to Ph.d programme in the

discipline of Information Technology to the respondent

University and were selected for the same but were

subsequently denied admission. It is the case of the petitioners

that both of them had qualified the GATE examination, which

entitled them to be exempted from appearing in the Research

Aptitude Test (RAT) conducted by the University for admission

in the Ph.d programme but still the petitioners had appeared in

the RAT examination. It is also the case of the petitioners that

they were later called for interview , petitioner No.1 on

17.1.2011 and petitioner No.2 on 18.1.2011 and thereafter

vide notice dated 27.1.2011, they were finally declared

selected by the respondent University and their names were

placed in the list of selected candidates at serial No. 4 and

serial No. 11, clearly indicating against their names that they

were granted exemption from CET-RAT based on their

qualifying the GATE exam. It is also the case of the petitioners

that one candidate, namely E. Bindu was also granted

admission in the said Ph.D programme as she along with these

petitioners was also declared selected based on the same fact

of qualifying GATE examination. Feeling aggrieved with the

said act of the respondent University, the petitioners have

preferred the present petition.

3. Mr. Anoop Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner submits that once the petitioners

were granted exemption from appearing in the RAT test based

on their qualifying the GATE examination and were called for

interview and thereafter they were finally selected, therefore,

the respondent University cannot now deny the admission on

the ground that the University had wrongly not taken into

consideration the validity period of GATE examination of the

petitioners. Counsel also submits that once the petitioners

have been duly selected by the University based on their

interview then they were treated as exempted candidates from

the GATE examination and the University should now be

estopped from taking any contrary stand to deny the admission

to the petitioners in the said course. Counsel has also argued

that a similarly situated candidate, Ms. E. Bindu was also

granted admission in the said course as she was also

interviewed by the selection committee based on her GATE

qualification. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is

that the act of the respondent is discriminatory, non-

transparent and the non-disclosure of decision about the final

selection wherein the petitioners were not selected is unfair,

unreasonable and arbitrary.

4. Opposing the present petition, Mr. Mukul Talwar,

learned counsel representing the University submits that both

the present petitioners had qualified the GATE examination in

the year 2008 but by the time they had applied to seek

admission in the Ph.D. prgoramme with the respondent

University, their GATE score had become invalid. Counsel also

argued that in the case of petitioner No. 1 his GATE score was

valid up till 15th March, 2010 and so far petitioner No. 2 is

concerned she had not even submitted her GATE score card.

Counsel has also argued that these petitioners had also

appeared in the Research Aptitude Test because of their

invalid GATE score and in the said RAT examination the rank

of petitioner No. 1 was 363 while petitioner No. 2 got the rank

of 256 out of total 464 candidates who had appeared in the

said RAT examination conducted by the respondent University

on 12th December, 2010. Counsel further submits that based

on the their said rank, they were ineligible to be called for

interview but were erroneously considered and called for

interview considering these candidates having qualified the

GATE examination and their GATE score being within the

validity period. Counsel thus submits that it is only because of

the said mistake committed by the officials of the University

that the petitioners were called for interview and they were

finally selected to seek admission in the said programme as

otherwise they were ineligible; firstly because their validity of

GATE score had already expired and secondly their rank

position in the RAT was very low. Counsel has also placed

reliance on the interim report filed by the committee of the

experts constituted by the Vice Chancellor pursuant to the

directions given by this Court to submit that the petitioners are

not entitled to seek admission in the Ph.d programme and have

been thus rightly not granted admission.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at

considerable length and gone through the records.

6. The petitioners herein sought their admission with

the respondent University in the Ph.D programme in the

stream of Information Technology and it is not in dispute

between the parties that the petitioners fulfilled the eligibility

criteria to seek admission in said course as per the selection

procedure laid down by the University in their bulletin. The

candidates seeking admission in the Ph.D programme were to

be short listed on the basis of UGC/GATE/CSIR/JRF or

Research Aptitude Test (RAT) as conducted by the University

and after shortlisting the candidates, final selection of the

candidates was to take place through the process of interview.

In the selection procedure, it was also clearly specified that the

NET (JRF)/GATE qualified (with valid dates) candidates, are

exempted from taking the test and their evaluation will be on

the basis of interview and academic record. The said selection

procedure as laid down in the information bulletin of the

respondent is reproduced as under:-

"Selection Procedure :-

Candidates shall be short-listed on the basis of UGC/GATE/CSI/JRF or Research Aptitude Test (RAT) conducted by the G.G.S. Indraprastha University and thereafter Interview shall be conducted. NET (JRF)/GATE qualified (with valid dates) candidates, are exempted from taking the test and their evaluation will be on the basis of interview and Academic record."

Both the petitioners were called for interview and interviewed

by the interview board on 17.1.2011 and 18.1.2011

respectively and both these candidates were called not on the

basis of their rank in the RAT exam but on account of the fact

that they were treated exempted under GATE category and in

the list of selected candidates vide notice dated 27th January,

2011, the respondent notified the names of these petitioners

and it has been clearly stated against their names "exempted

from CET-RAT". It is also not in dispute that rank of both the

petitioners in the RAT exam was much lower out of 464

candidates who had appeared in the said RAT exam which

could not have entitled them to be called for the interview as

the rank of petitioner No. 1 was 363 with total marks of 36

while the rank of petitioner No. 2 was 256 with total marks of

49. With the said rank, the petitioners were not within the zone

of consideration and, therefore, they were not supposed to be

called for interview as the students who were higher in rank

than the petitioners were also not called for interview. As per

the respondent University, the petitioners were wrongly called

for the interview treating the case of the petitioners in the

exemption category based on their GATE qualification and this

error was noticed by Nodal Authority i.e. Director Research

and Consultancy after declaration of the said result and

immediately thereafter the names of the petitioners were

directed to be deleted from the tentative list of the successful

candidates.

7. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court vide

order dated 18th July, 2011, the Vice Chancellor of GGSIPU had

constituted a committee to find out as to how the present

petitioners namely Mr. Deepak Saraswat and Ms. Rolly Gupta

were declared eligible to participate in the interview and then

finally declared selected to seek admission in Ph.D

programme. The interim report filed by the said committee

has been placed on record and the findings given by the said

committee for better appreciation are reproduced as under:-

"(1) That the case of E. Bindu mentioned in the case does not pertain to the current batch of admissions to the Ph.D.Programme. These new admissions have been done under the revised guidelines of UGC, while the case of E.Bindu was an old and pending case whose process was completed before the revised guidelines of UGC. Thus, the admission of E.Bindu and such other are in order and are as per the decided policy of the University.

(2) As per the inquiry till date, it appears that staff of Dean USIT has not colluded in listing the names of the petitioners. (3) The committee in its preliminary inquiry realized that both the petitioners were called for the interview because of a confusion and an innocent mistake. While going into records and from the explanation of the Dean USIT it appears that following facts created the confusion which led into the calling of the petitioners for interview. The facts are:-

(i) Both the petitioners in their applications from Ph.D. admission have ticked the column themselves under exempted category represented as qualified, GATE (GATE candidates exempted from RAT)

(ii) These candidates though being exempted from RAT also appeared in RAT.

(iii) These candidates were aware that they were not exempted under GATE, category as their validity was only upto March 10, 2010.

(iv) These candidates were not called for interview on the basis of RAT (Conducted by University) in which both the petitioners scored very low. Both these candidates were called under the exempted category which the petitioners claimed in their application form.

(v) On the basis of the interview the names of the petitioners were placed in the list of the selected candidates.

(vi) However, the Director Research & Consultancy Prof. A.K.Narula while again verifying the forms of selected candidates found that the GATE validity of both the petitioners was only valid upto March 10, 2010 and thus these candidates were disqualified to claim exemption under GATE.

(vii) The Director Research & Consultancy on finding this fact struck off the names of the petitioners from the list of the selected candidates on the grounds of invalid GATE score as the last date of receiving application was 01.11.2010."

Hence, it is evident from the above report that both the

petitioners in their application forms had ticked the relevant

columns themselves under exempted category although both

these candidates were well aware of the fact that they were

not entitled to seek exemption under the GATE category. The

counsel appearing for the petitioners has not advanced any

arguments to contradict the said findings given by the said

committee. Both the petitioners had taken the GATE

examination in 2008 and the validity of the score is for two

years only. The validity of the GATE score of petitioner No. 1

had already expired in March, 2010 and thus he was not

entitled for exemption to undertake RAT exam and similarly

petitioner No. 2 did not even place on record his GATE score

card for seeking the exemption for appearing in the RAT

examination. It is evident that the petitioners herein were

aware of the fact that they are not eligible for seeking

exemption to RAT and had therefore appeared in the same but

had secured a dismal score due to which they would not have

been entitled to get a call for the interview. This court is

appalled by the contumacious conduct of the petitioners in

approaching this court with unclean hands and suppression of

facts claiming relief by putting the blame on the respondents.

8. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that

the conduct of the respondent is discriminatory vis a vis Ms.

E.Bindu also does not subsist in the face of the submissions

vide the interim report stating that the her admission was of

the year 2008 batch and not for the current batch wherein the

petitioners had applied and thus does not in any way cause

prejudice to the case of the petitioners.

9. This court however sounds a word of caution to the

respondent university for being more careful to carry out a

more painstaking scrutiny of the documents and application

forms as in the present case also the documents should have

been examined by the concerned branch of the respondent

university in time to exactly know as to whether these

candidates were entitled for exemption from the RAT

examination based on their GATE qualification and there is

undoubtedly negligence on the part of the concerned officials.

10. Be that is it may, at the same time because of the

said mistake committed by some officials of the respondent

University, the petitioners cannot be allowed to seek admission

in the Ph.D. programme when they were totally ineligible to

seek admission under the said programme. Here it would be

useful to refer to the judgment of this court in the case of Ritu

Aggarwal vs. Indian Institute of Foreign Trade WPC no.

7573/2011 decided on 19.7.2011 where I had the occasion

to deal with another case of cancellation of wrongful admission

wherein it was held as under:

"The grievance of the petitioners in these petitions is that they cannot be made to suffer for no fault on their part and the respondent is estopped from canceling their admissions once they were granted admission. The rescue of the doctrine of promissory estoppel will not be available to the petitioners in the present case as the doctrine is an equitable doctrine and it must yield when equity requires. The respondent has committed a patent mistake in wrongly declaring the result and if admissions of the petitioners herein are allowed to subsist, it would lead to injustice to those who are not before the court and have achieved meritorious positions to secure their admissions. Also, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the respondent institute has within reasonable time realized the error on its part and cancelled the admission within reasonable time, and it is not as if the petitioners herein had pursued a substantial period of their MBA programme. It is a settled legal position that the an order which was wrong and illegal at its very inception cannot become the foundation for perpetuating further illegality, it cannot be allowed to exist to the detriment of the others who are the rightful claimants. It is also a settled legal position that the courts in exercise of the writ jurisdiction should not interfere in academic matters and no orders should be passed for protecting the interests of the students on the

grounds of misplaced sympathy. Therefore, this court is not inclined to exercise its equitable jurisdiction for passing any order in favour of these petitioners.

10. It is manifest and cannot be overlooked, that the criteria laid down by the respondent for admission consisting of a written test and then for a group discussion, essay writing and interview etc. is with the object to select the best from the lot for the said MBA (International Business) programme. Today in the time of cut throat competition, there are umpteen number of candidates vying for every single seat and it is a hard hitting reality that admission to various colleges, especially to the professional institutes like the respondent have become a Herculean task. It is unlike the bygone days when the marks in the last examination cleared would entitle you to admission in a professional course as now a lot of factors are taken into consideration which are measured by the yardstick of written examination, group discussion ,etc. Undertaking a professional course from a prestigious college guarantees the future in the job arena and hence students prepare for months for these exams, enrolling themselves in coaching centers, taking tuitions, so that they are able to make it to the top notch institutes. Merit and merit alone is the mantra today and being able to get admission in the desired college is a dream come true for many. Undoubtedly, the respondent and other such institutes have to be very careful and diligent with the expert staff in place to prepare the correct result of such candidates and any wrong declaration of the result, can jeopardize the career and future of these students. It is no doubt possible that had these petitioners known that they were selected for the Kolkata campus they certainly could have tried their luck to seek admission in some other course or with some other professional institute. Admittedly their ranking in the merit list is much lower than the ranking of the last candidate who secured admission at Delhi, which is a case of one Arnav Kapoor, who secured the rank of 286 and while the last candidate who secured admission at the Kolkata campus was at the rank of 592. Certainly there cannot be any justification to perpetuate such a wrong and that too such a wrong which would demoralize the meritorious candidates. The writ jurisdiction is jurisdiction of equity and this equitable jurisdiction cannot be exercised in favour of those who are not entitled to such a relief. If the case of these petitioners is accepted then even a student having failed in exam but wrongly declared successful in the admission will also claim his admission because of such wrong declaration in his results. The petitioners thus cannot claim any advantage and rather undue advantage because of the error committed by data operator at the time of insertion of their marks."

Even in the present case, the mistake on the part of the

officials of the University has been detected at a very initial

stage and, therefore, also the petitioners cannot claim any

undue advantage of the said mistake committed by the

respondent without any comparison with the other candidates

who stand higher in rank in the merit list of RAT exam.

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

not find merit in the present petition the same is hereby

dismissed.

September 13, 2011                       KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
mg