Pragya Chaudhary vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 793 Del

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+            W.P.(C) 740/2012 and CM 1615/2012

                                          Decided on: 6th February, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF
PRAGYA CHAUDHARY                                      ..... Petitioner
                         Through: Mr. Dilip Singh, Advocate with
                         Mr. Govind Sharma, Mr. Mritunjye Kumar and
                         Mr. Jolly Sharma, Advocates

                   versus

GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY
AND ORS.                                       ..... Respondents
                   Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar, Advocate with
                   Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for R-1/GGSIPU.
                   Ms. Ferida Satarawala, Advocate with
                   Ms. Rachna Saxena, Advocate for R-2/college.

CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying inter

alia for directions to respondent No.1/University to confirm her

admission in Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (in short

'BAMS') course for the academic year 2011-12 in respondent

No.2/college which is affiliated to respondent No.1/University. The

petitioner also seeks quashing of the letter dated 05.12.2011 issued by

respondent No.1/University to respondent No.2/college declining the

request to lower the minimum eligibility as prescribed in the admission

brochure for the academic session 2011-12, as being illegal. Lastly,

directions are sought to respondent No.1/University and respondent

No.2/college to relax the minimum eligibility criteria in terms of the

letter dated 28.11.2011 addressed by respondent No.3/CCIM to

respondent No.1/University.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that in the year

2009, the petitioner had passed her class XII examination and she had

secured an aggregate percentage of 59.67% in three subjects, i.e.,

Physics, Chemistry and Biology. In the year 2011, she sat for the

Common Entrance Test (in short „CET‟) for admission to BAMS course

on the basis of the admission brochure circulated by respondent

No.1/University. In the brochure for admission to BAMS course, the

eligibility criteria for admission was laid down in clauses 5.3 and 5.4.

The essential qualifications for eligibility for admission to the aforesaid

course was stipulated in clause 5.3 as below:-

"5.3 Essential Qualifications Candidate must studied 11th and 12 class regularly and passed the 12th class under the 10+2 scheme/senior school certificate examination or an equivalent examination of the recognized University/Board of any Indian state with Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English (core or elective or functional)."

The minimum aggregate stipulated under the brochure was set out in

clause 5.4, which is as below:-

"5.4 Minimum Aggregate

Candidate must have passed in the subject of Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English (core or elective or functional) individually and must have obtained a minimum of 60% marks together in Physics, Chemistry, Biology (50% in case of S.C./S.T. candidates)."

3. It was further stipulated in clause (C) of the Important

Notes for BDS/BAMS Programme (Code 02) in the brochure, that while

deciding the basic eligibility of any candidate for admission there would

be no rounding-off of the percentage of marks of the qualifying

examination. It is an admitted case that though the petitioner did not

qualify in terms of the eligibility criteria laid down in the aforesaid

brochure for the BAMS course for the academic session 2011-12,

respondent No.2/college had granted her provisional admission on

31.10.2011, subject to approval of the competent authority (Annexure

P-4). Thereafter, the petitioner had deposited the fee with respondent

No.2/college on the basis of her provisional admission in the BAMS

course.

4. On 18.10.2011, respondent No.2/college informed

respondent No.1/University that during the course of counselling, a few

students did not fulfill the eligibility criteria of having scored a

minimum of 60% marks and, therefore, could not be permitted to take

admission, although, call letters were issued to them as well on the

basis of a revised merit list issued by respondent No.1/University. In

the said communication, the name of the petitioner had featured at Sr.

No.7 and was shown under the general category with 59.67% marks in

PCB. Respondent No.2/college requested respondent No.1/University

to consider the case of the petitioner alongwith 19 other similarly

placed students for a one time relaxation on the ground that there was

an existing vacancy of 20 seats during the said session.

5. Counsel for the petitioner states that despite the aforesaid

representation made by respondent No.2/college, respondent

No.1/University illegally turned down the aforesaid request made by

respondent No.2/college by issuing the impugned refusal letter dated

05.12.2011. He relies on the letter dated 28.11.2011 addressed by

respondent No.3/CCIM to respondent No.2/college wherein, it was

stated that under the relevant regulations prescribed by CCIM, the

qualification for admission in BAMS course was prescribed as 12 th

Standard with Science with at least 50% marks in aggregate in the

subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology and that fixing 60% marks

for admission would amount to debarring the students for admission

falling between 50% to 60%. It is stated by learned counsel that

though a copy of the aforesaid letter was forwarded by respondent

No.3/CCIM to respondent No.1/University, the same was ignored while

issuing the impugned rejection letter dated 05.12.2011.

6. Counsel for respondent No.1/University opposes the

present petition as being misconceived and states that the same is

liable to be rejected. He submits that a similar case as that of the

petitioner herein was considered by this Court in W.P.(C) 8138/2011

entitled Vrinda Gaur & Ors. vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha

University & Ors. decided on 14.12.2011, whereunder it had upheld

the stand of respondent No.1/University that decisions regarding fixing

of admission criteria rests with an expert body like the University and

the Court ought not to interfere with the same unless some

perversity, patent illegality of discrimination is demonstrated by the

petitioner. He further states that just as in the aforesaid case, even in

the present case, the petitioner has not challenged the vires of the

relevant provisions of the admission brochure that has laid down the

minimum eligibility criteria. Nor has she claimed that the respondent

No.1/University has acted in a malafide manner. A copy of the

aforesaid decision in the case of Vrinda Gaur (Supra) is handed over by

the counsel for respondent No.1/University. While disposing of the

aforesaid writ petition, it had been observed as below:-

"8. The Court has heard the counsels for the parties and has perused the judgments relied upon by them. First and foremost, the fact that provisional admission had been granted to them cannot be the basis for the petitioners to canvas that they are entitled to claim relaxation of the eligibility criteria for their admission to the course in

question for the reason that being granted provisional admission to an Institute, does not in itself create a vested right in the petitioners to claim admission to the Institute. It cannot be overlooked that at the time of taking admission and depositing their fee, the petitioners were well aware of the fact that their admission was subject to approval by the competent authority. Therefore they took a calculated risk in taking provisional admission to the said Institute. Furthermore, a plea of the seats going abegging can also not be taken, as the petitioners as well as respondent No.3/Institute were aware of the fact that the petitioners‟ admission was provisional, and respondent No.3/Institute had the option to conduct another round of counseling and admit students who could meet the eligibility criteria.

In not having done so, it was the choice of the Institute to let its seats remain vacant. Furthermore, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Visveswaraiah Technological University vs. Krishnendu Halder reported as (2011) 4 SCC 606, the object of prescribing eligibility criteria is to ensure maintenance of excellence in standards of education and not to fill up all the seats. Reducing the standards to fill the seats was held to be a dangerous trend which would lead to destruction of the quality of education. A warning was sounded of the creeping commercialization of education and it was reiterated that determination of such standards being part of an academic policy of the University, are beyond the purview of judicial review.

9.The contention of the counsel for the petitioners that if the Court permits lowering of minimum eligibility criteria, no student would be prejudiced, appears attractive at first blush but when examined closely is untenable, as the said argument does not take into consideration those students who fell within the ranks and were called for counseling by respondent No.3/Institute but stayed away because they did not meet the minimum eligibility standards

laid down by respondent No.1/University, and who are not before the Court and would be adversely affected if such a plea of the petitioners is accepted. Therefore, the ground taken by the respondent No.1/University in its letter dated 5.12.2011, denying relaxation of the eligibility criteria on the ground that it would prejudice the other students, is found to be a reasonable and valid ground."

10. xxx

11. Lastly, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.3/Institute had no objection to the lowering of the criteria and even respondent No.1/University had permitted the same for the next academic year, is also of no avail to the petitioners. It is settled law that policy decisions regarding the admissions in affiliated Institutes lies in the domain of the University in question. The decision-making power of the University cannot be interfered with under judicial review unless the petitioner is able to show some patent malafides on the part of the University, or point out instances of discrimination, or can make out a case that the criteria laid down is so perverse that it cannot be sustained. In the case of Siddhartha Kaul & Ors. v. GGSIU (Supra), the Division Bench has categorically held that merely because certain conditions imposed are inconvenient to some students, they cannot be said to be arbitrary. In the said decision, notice was also taken of a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Visveswaraiah Technological University v. Krishnendu Haldar reported as (2011) 4 SCC 606, wherein it had been held that the object of prescribing minimum standards is to ensure maintenance of excellence in standards of education and not to fill up seats, and lowering of such standards would result in destruction of the quality of education. In the present case, while the Court can sympathize with the predicament of the petitioners, it cannot help but observe that they have not been able to point out

any such arbitrariness, illegality or perversity in the criteria laid down by respondent No.1/University for interference in judicial review. The petitioners are seeking relief purely on the grounds of equity, which ought not to be exercised in their favour, given the facts of the case. The powers of judicial review of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are well-defined, and a petition filed purely on the grounds of equity ought not to be ordinarily entertained, especially in the absence of any challenge laid in the petition to the vires of the relevant provisions of the applicable Rules." (emphasis added)

7. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does

not seek any relaxation from the court for rounding off the aggregate

percentage obtained by her in view of the bar contained in clause (C)

of the admission brochure. He only states that respondent

No.1/University could not have ignored the letter dated 28.11.2011

addressed by respondent No.3/CCIM to it.

8. In the present case, the emphasis laid by the counsel for

the petitioner on the correspondence resting between respondent

No.3/CCIM and respondent No.2/college cannot be of much assistance

to the petitioner, inasmuch as the eligibility criteria prescribed for

admission to the BAMS Course had been clearly laid down in the

admission brochure and respondent No.2/College was required to

strictly adhere to the same. The aforesaid eligibility criteria was

admittedly in public domain as long back as on 15.03.2011. In the

present case, the petitioner had passed her XII class in the year 2009.

Therefore, when she had applied for admission to the BAMS course,

she was well aware of her aggregate PCB percentage in class XII.

Despite the same, the petitioner took a chance, which can only be

termed as a calculated risk to apply for admission to the aforesaid

course in respondent No.1/University. Thereafter, respondent

No.2/college gave provisional admission to the petitioner. But, merely

because the admission granted to the petitioner was provisional in

nature and thereafter she has been studying in respondent

No.2/college since November 2011, cannot be a ground to sustain her

admission in the light of the terms and conditions of eligibility

prescribed in the Brochure and reiterated in the impugned letter dated

05.12.2011 issued by respondent No.1/University, wherein the request

of respondent No.2/college to lower the minimum eligibility criteria

prescribed in the admission brochure for 20 students was declined.

9. There is force in the submission made by learned counsel

for respondent No.1/University that any such attempt on the part of

respondent No.1/University to accommodate the petitioner and 19

other students at the request of respondent No.2/College would

amount to interference and that too at a very belated stage for the

reason that, granting relaxation in the eligibility criteria would cause

serious prejudice to other candidates, who are not before the Court

and were desirous of taking admission in the BAMS course in

respondent No.1/University but stayed away in the light of the

eligibility criteria laid down in the brochure. Merely because respondent

No.1/University has extended an assurance to respondent No.2/college

that for the academic year 2012-13, the minimum eligibility condition

regarding percentage of aggregate marks in Physics, Chemistry and

Biology in XII class cannot be a ground for this Court to direct

respondent No.1/University to accept the request of respondent

No.2/College to admit the petitioner and 19 other students in the

academic year 2011-12. The Court is also mindful of the fact that in

matters relating to education, where time is of essence, the parties

who choose to approach the Court belatedly cannot be granted relief,

more so when the academic year is half way through and other

similarly placed students, who had not applied for admission to the

aforesaid course in respondent No.2/college on the basis of the

eligibility criteria laid down by respondent No.1/University and had

accepted the same as their fate, are not before the Court.

10. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine alongwith the

pending application, as being devoid of merits.

                                                      (HIMA KOHLI)
FEBRUARY 6, 2012                                         JUDGE
rkb/anb