Astha Jain vs Delhi Technological University & ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 4985 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       Date of decision: 24th , August, 2012

+                         W.P.(C) No.4703/2012
%      ASTHA JAIN                                               ....Petitioner
                          Through:      Mr. R.K. Saini, Adv.

                          Versus
    DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL
    UNIVERSITY & ANR.                           ..... Respondents
                  Through:    Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner, having obtained admission in the course of B.Tech.

(Polymer Science & Chemical Technology) in the year 2011 in the

respondent University and having topped in the first year (comprising of

first and second semester) of the said course, has filed this writ petition

impugning Note (v) under clause 3.2 of the of the Prospectus for the

Academic Year 2011-12 of the respondent University prohibiting change of

Branch/Stream after the commencement of the second semester, "even if

some seats fall vacant in some of the Branches/Streams during the course of

second semester". It is the plea of the petitioner that, a) a number of seats in

various Branches/Streams/Disciplines including in Computer Engineering,

Electronics & Communication Engineering, Electronics & Electrical

Engineering, Software Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Informational

Technology and Civil Engineering have fallen vacant during the course of

the second semester; b) that though the said streams were higher in the

choice of the petitioner, while seeking admission in the year 2011 but were

not allotted to the petitioner as the seats therein were then occupied by those

having a rank in All India Engineering Entrance Examination, 2011

(AIEEE), higher than that of the petitioner; c) that pursing B.Tech in the

said streams will enhance the careers prospects of the petitioner and ; d)

that even though some seats in the said streams have now fallen vacant, the

respondent University is denying such upgradation by migration/change to

said streams to the petitioner. Reliance is placed on the Rules in this regard

in other Universities and which are stated to be permitting such change of

Stream/Branch/Upgradation. It is contended that the prohibition aforesaid

contained in the Prospectus is unreasonable and arbitrary in as much as the

course content of the first two semesters (1st year) of all the

Branches/Streams of B.Tech. is the same.

2. Notice of the petition was issued. The respondent University has filed

a counter affidavit, to which rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner.

3. The respondent University in its counter affidavit has pleaded, a)

that the petitioner, even in the year 2011 was admitted on the spot round of

admission and in her admission letter itself it was clearly mentioned that

"Branch allotted is final and will not be upgraded in any circumstances"; b)

that the admission system is based on AIEEE All India over all Rank and all

upgradations till the stage permitted, are also done on the basis of AIEEE

rank; c) that in the absence of any policy/procedure for upgradation, the

petitioner has no right thereto; d) that the prevalent policy/procedure is

being followed by the respondent University for the last number of years

and without any hitch whatsoever; e) that the policy varies from one

Institution to another and the policy applicable to another Institution cannot

be made binding on the respondent University; f) that IITs instance,

whereof is given, come under the Central University while the respondent is

a State University; g) that the entrance examination pattern of the

respondent University is different from the pattern prevalent in IITs; h) that

while in IITs, upgradation is on the basis of the result of the first and

second semester, upgradation in the respondent University even till when

permitted is based on AIEEE result. It is also stated that in any case no

vacant seat to permit change to the petitioner was available.

4. The petitioner filed rejoinder primarily on the aspect of the

availability of vacant seats.

5. The counsel for the respondent today, during the hearing, has fairly

admitted having received instructions as to availability of seats. She has

further stated that the respondent University, for the next academic year

onward , will examine the question as to whether such change, as prevalent

in some of the other Universities/IITs and as claimed by the petitioner,

should be permitted or not.

6. The counsel for the petitioner however states that since the petitioner

is the topper in the first year, of the stream to which she was admitted and if

change were to be permitted in the third semester she would definitely be

eligible, she ought to be granted the relief of allowing change.

7. Though the submission aforesaid of the counsel for the petitioner

appears attractive but the fact remains that the petitioner took admission

with full knowledge and awareness that she, even if performs well in the

first year of the B.Tech. course, would not be entitled to change of

Stream/Branch within the respondent Institute. If we were to direct the

respondent University to allow such a change to the petitioner, it is bound to

lead to a cascading reaction where other students also would similarly apply

for other vacant seats in different streams. The academic year is already

more than two months old; admittedly the course content of different

Stream/Branches, at least, from the third semester onwards, is different.

Considering all these facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to grant

the relief claimed by the petitioner. The respondent Institute also has only

agreed to consider the change. It still has to take a decision whether a

student, who has not been able to secure admission in the Branch/Stream of

his/her choice, admissions whereto stopped at a higher rank, is to be allowed

to such upgradation for the mere reason of the seats having fallen vacant.

The question, whether a student who was ineligible for admission initially,

should be admitted to a more sought after Stream/Branch/Course, and of

course at the cost of lowering the standards, is also to be considered by the

respondent University. The respondent University, as aforesaid till now,

though allowing upgradation till the closure of the first semester has been

allowing the same, not on the basis of result/performance of the first

semester but on the basis of the original rank in AIEEE examination on the

basis whereof admissions were made. If the same system were to be

followed, it is well nigh possible that a student of a higher rank than the

petitioner may opt for the seats which have fallen vacant.

8. The Supreme Court recently in Sanchit Bansal Vs. The Joint

Admission Board (2012) 1SCC 157 has reiterated that the process of

selection of candidates for admission with reference to their performance,

the process of achieving the objective of selecting candidates who will be

better equipped to suit the specialized courses, are all technical matters in

academic fields and Courts will not interfere in such processes except where

the procedure adopted is arbitrary and capricious, i.e. illogical and

whimsical, something without any reasonable explanation. The same view

was echoed in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K. Shyam Sunder AIR 2011 SC

3470 by observing that the Courts lack expertise especially in disputes

relating to policies of pure academic educational matters and by relying on a

host of earlier judgments including of Constitutional Bench in the

University of Mysore Vs. C.D. Govindarao AIR 1965 SC 491. The

prospective in this regard is elucidated in Maharasthra State Board of

Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar

Sheth (1984) 4 SCC 27 by stating that it will be wholly wrong for the Court

to make a pedantic and totally idealistic approach, isolated from the actual

realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and

unmindful of the consequences which would emanate therefrom and should

avoid substituting its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in

relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by

professional men possessing technical expertise of working of educational

institution.

9. We therefore, though not granting any relief to the petitioner, dispose

of this writ petition with a direction to the respondent University to, in a

time bound manner and well before the commencement of the next

academic session and for reasons to be recorded in writing, take a decision

on whether change of Stream/Branch/Course is to be permitted after

conclusion of the second semester also and if so on what basis.

No costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

AUGUST 24, 2012 pp