Delhi High Court
Shakti Agrawal vs University Of Delhi And Ors on 16 July, 2012
Author: G. S. Sistani
$~
16.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8879/2011
% Judgment dated 16.07.2012
SHAKTI AGRAWAL ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Lalit Kumar Jha, Adv.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.M.J.S. Rupal, Adv. for University.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. By the present petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, petitioner seeks a direction to respondents to grant hostel
accommodation to the petitioner, who is suffering from double disabilities
i.e. visually challenged and severe osteoporosis.
2. The facts, as stated in the present writ petition, are that the petitioner is
pursuing his Ph.D in law at Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. The
petitioner is the only second student in the History of Faculty of Law, who
is completely visually challenged and who has been able to get enrolled in
Ph.D. course.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is pursuing
his education despite all odds of his life. Counsel further submits that
respondents no.3 and 4 are determined to keep the petitioner out of the
hostel with active connivance of respondent no.2. Counsel next submits
that petitioner had joined M.A. History course in the year 2004 and after
completing his M.A. the petitioner got admission in the year 2006 in LL.B
in CLC, Faculty of Law, Delhi University. After completing the LL.B the
petitioner got admission in LLM in Faculty of Law, Delhi University in
the year 2009 and after successfully completing the LLM in the year 2011
the petitioner sought admission in Ph.D in Faculty of Law, Delhi
University. Counsel also submits that petitioner is economically weak
student and is being supported by his married sister. It is contended that
the petitioner is being singled out and subjected to cruel behaviour by the
respondents solely for the reason that the petitioner had filed a petition,
being W.P.(C) 6136/2010, in this Court seeking a direction for fool-proof
security arrangement in the hostels of University of Delhi particularly
with respect to persons with disabilities.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was
compelled to file the said writ petition after the laptop of the petitioner
was stolen, which he purchased after considerable financial hardships. It
is further contended that on account of his approaching this Court on an
earlier occasion respondents are determined to deny the right of the
petitioner under false excuses. It is also contended that the period of six
years, which has been fixed by the respondents for availing hostel
facilities, is arbitrary, as a law student takes three years to finish his LL.B.
and in case he decides to study further he would spend two years in LLM
and in case he pursues PH.D then it is for a period of four years. Thus, a
student should be permitted to stay in the hostel for a period of nine years
and not six years.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to
the Draft Policy Document on Differently Abled persons and submits that
the aim of this policy is to provide facility to differently abled persons
irrespective of the fact whether they are visual challenged or orthopedic or
suffering from any kind of impairment.
6. Mr.M.J.S. Rupal, learned counsel for the Delhi University, submits that
the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner are factually incorrect
and he has denied that the petitioner has been singled out or that he has
been asked to leave the hostel accommodation on account of his having
filed an earlier writ petition. Counsel further submits that in any case the
earlier writ petition, which was filed by the petitioner, was directed
against the Police and not against University of Delhi, although the
University was made a party in the said writ petition. Counsel has drawn
the attention of the Court to the Handbook of Information and Rules,
2011-2012, more particularly Rule 6 of Eligibility, which reads as under:
"ELIGIBILITY
A student seeking admission or re-admission to Gwyer Hall should:
(vi) not have resided in any University of Delhi hostel facility for
a course of the same level earlier, or should not have
completed six years residence in any other post-graduate
hostel of the University."
7. Mr.Rupal further submits that petitioner has already overstayed by one
year although he was entitled to use the hostel for six years only. The
petitioner left the hostel only after completing seven years of his studies.
Counsel also submits that large numbers of students are studying in the
University of Delhi from Delhi and outside Delhi including handicapped
students, and the purpose of making rules and fixing six years as
maximum period to stay in the hostel is with a view to regulate the
admissions to hostels and strike a balance so as to accommodate the
maximum number of students. Counsel next submits that this hostel is
meant for post graduate and above courses. Counsel contends that
although post graduate course is only for two years, the University of
Delhi has allowed a student to stay upto six years in the hostel and in this
manner it cannot be said that the rule is either arbitrary or framing of rules
is a mere colourable exercise of power. Counsel also contends that in the
present writ petition no grounds have been raised by the petitioner to
show that there is anything arbitrary and discriminatory.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
contentions and also perused the pleadings, and the Handbook of
Information and Rules of the Gwyer Hall, University of Delhi, which
have been placed on record. It is not in dispute that petitioner is 30 years
of age and has been studying in Delhi University since the year 2004.
There is nothing on record to show that respondents have acted in a
discriminatory manner against the petitioner. Admittedly, the earlier writ
petition was primarily against the Police for providing fool proof security
arrangement in the Hostel. The writ petition was not directed against the
University and even otherwise the Hand Book of Information and Rules,
which contain the legibility criteria for hostel accommodation, was
drafted earlier in point of time. Thus the ground for discrimination is
baseless and without any force. Since the hostel is meant for post-graduate
and above courses fixing of six years period to stay in the hostel during
such period is with a view to strike a balance and allow as many students
as possible to avail hostel faculties. The period of six years fixed by the
University of Delhi is not whimsical, unfair and unreasonable and thus
warrants no interference by this court and it is best left to the university to
decide the period of stay for any student. It has repeatedly been held that
courts should not ordinary interfere with the functioning of educational
institutions, unless there is clear violation of some statutory rule or legal
principle. Petitioner has already taken advantage of the rule and used the
hostel facilities.
9. As far as aim and object of Draft Policy Document on the Differently
Abled, which is relied by counsel for the petitioner, is concerned, the
same are not in dispute. The Policy is to be followed uniformly and in
case the petitioner is permitted to stay in the hostel meant for post
graduate and above courses, for more than six years, then other disabled
persons will be deprived of hostel accommodation.
10. In view of above, no grounds are made out to entertain the present petition
and the same is accordingly dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J
JULY 16, 2012
msr
