Delhi High Court
Sri Guru Tej Bahadur Khalsa ... vs University Of Delhi & Ors. on 25 June, 2012
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on 25.06.2012
+ LPA No. 461/2012 and CM Nos. 10821-10823/2012
Sri Guru Tej Bahadur Khalsa College ... Appellant
Versus
University of Delhi & Ors. ...Respondents
And
+ LPA No. 462/2012 and CM No. 10824-10826/2012
Sri Guru Gobind Singh College of Commerce ... Appellant
Versus
University of Delhi & Ors. ...Respondents
And
+ LPA No. 463/2012 and CM No. 10827-10829/2012
Mata Sundari College for Women ... Appellant
Versus
LPA Nos. 461/2012, 462/2012, 463/2012, 464/2012 Page 1 of 9
University of Delhi & Ors. ...Respondents
And
+ LPA No. 464/2012 and CM No. 10830-10832/2012
Sri Guru Nanak Dev Khalsa College ... Appellant
Versus
University of Delhi & Ors. ...Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellants : Mr K.T.S. Tulsi with Mr Raj Kamal
For the Respondent : Ms Pinky Anand, with Mr Amit Bansal for R-1
Mr Ravikant for Mr Amitesh Kumar for Respondent (UGC)
Mr Anil Nauriya and Ms Rachna Bahadur for Respondents 3&4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
JUDGMENT
V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)
CAVEAT Nos. 626/2012, 628/2012, 629/2012, 627/2012
Since the caveator has put in appearance, caveats stand discharged.
LPA Nos. 461/2012, 462/2012, 463/2012, 464/2012
1. The appellants before us claim to be minority educational institutions set up
and being managed by Sikh community. All the four institutions are stated to be
under the management of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee
constituted under the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1971. The appellant institutions also
claim that they were set up by Sikh Community for the purpose of imparting
education to the members of the said community as also to others.
2. Vide letter dated 18.06.2008, these institutions were informed by the
University of Delhi that since they are subject to the statutes and ordinances of the
University as also the guidelines issued by it, they were expected to follow the
provisions regarding OBC reservations in admissions and recruitments. WP(C)
No. 4584/2008 was then filed by these institutions, claiming that being minority
educational institutions, they were not bound to make admissions within the
framework of the policy laid down by the University and, therefore, were not
required to provide reservation in admissions. Vide order dated 25.07.2008, a
learned Single Judge of this Court took the view that these institutions were bound
to implement the respective policy of Government of India in respect of other
backward classes (OBC) by providing 27% reservation while admitting students to
the courses run by them. The order dated 25.07.2008 was challenged by way of
LPA No. 472/2008. In that LPA, an interim order was passed on 19.08.2008,
directing the University not to take any coercive action against the institutions.
The LPA was disposed of vide order dated 01.12.2008. While disposing of the
LPA, a Division Bench of this Court observed that in view of the decision of
Supreme Court in Manager, St. Thomas U.P. School, Kerala and Anr. v.
Commissioner and Secretary to General Education Department (2002) 2 SCC
497, the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (NCMEI) was
the competent forum to determine in terms of Section 11(f) of the National
Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004. NCMEI was
accordingly directed to decide the applications, which these institutions had already
filed by that time seeking declaration of minority status. It was further directed that
the interim relief granted on 19.08.2008 would continue during the pendency of the
writ petition. The parties were given liberty to apply for vacation/modification of
the interim relief before the learned Single Judge after the decision of NCMEI.
3. Vide order dated 19.07.2011, NCMEI held that these institutions had been
established by the Sikh Community and were being administered by Delhi Sikh
Gurdwara Management Committee. Accordingly, these institutions were declared
as „minority educational institutions‟ within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the
National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004.
4. WP(C) No. 8293/2011, 8297/2011, 8302/2011 and 8310/2011 were then
filed by the University of Delhi, challenging the minority status accorded to these
institutions by NCMEI. When these writ petitions came for hearing on 25.11.2011
before a learned Single Judge of this Court, the learned senior counsel representing
these institutions made a statement that purely as an interim measure, no
appointment/admission in pursuance to Annexure A-2 to the application for stay,
would be made till the next date of hearing.
5. Vide letter dated 24.05.2012, the University, referring to the letters received
from these institutions stating therein that being minority educational institutions,
they were exempted from reservations from SC/ST and OBCs, informed them that
the matter regarding minority status to them being sub judice they were requested
to following the reservation policy relating to SCs/STs and OBCs as per the
previous practice followed in the University till the outcome of the said litigation.
6. CM Nos. 6660/2012, 6655/2012, 6658/2012 and 6662/2012 were then filed
by these institutions in the aforesaid WP(C) No. 8293/2011, 8297/2011, 8302/2011
and 8310/2011 respectively seeking directions. Vide impugned order dated
29.05.2012, a learned Single Judge of this Court, inter alia, directed as under:-
"Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent
No.1/colleges states at the outset that after the present
applications were filed, the colleges have received a
letter dated 24.5.2012 from the petitioner/University of
Delhi on the subject of centralized admission to SC/ST
categories, wherein the colleges have been requested to
follow the reservation policies relating to the SC, ST and
OBC as per the previous practice followed in the
University, till the outcome of the pending litigation
between the parties. A copy of the letter dated 24.05.2012
is handed over and taken on record. Mr. Tulsi states that
respondent No.1/Colleges are willing to abide by the said
letter without prejudice to the rights and contentions of
the colleges, as raised by them in the present
proceedings.
In view of the above submission made on behalf of the
respondent No.1/Colleges, it is directed that the colleges
shall abide by the aforesaid directions issued by the
petitioner/University and admit students belonging to the
SC, ST and OBC categories for the academic year 2012-
13 without prejudice to their rights and contentions as
raised in the affidavits filed in the present writ petitions.
The applications are disposed of."
7. The contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the University is
that the appellants having agreed to abide by the letter dated 24.05.2012 and the
learned Single Judge having accordingly passed an order directing them to admit
status belonging to the SC/ST and OBC categories for the academic year 2012-
2012, without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the writ petitions, the
appeals challenging the consent order are not maintainable. The learned senior
counsel representing the appellants on the other hand submits that when he stated
before the learned Single Judge that they were willing to abide by the letter, he had
only agreed to follow the same practice which the University, qua these
institutions, was following with respect to reservations at the time of making
admissions in the colleges. In other words, according to him, the letter dated
24.05.2012 was understood by him to mean that the appellant institutions have to
follow the same practice with respect to reservation for SC/ST and OBC as they
were following in the University of Delhi at the time they received this letter.
8. It is an admitted position before us that till the academic year 2011-2012, the
appellant institutions were extending benefit of reservation to SC/ST categories,
but were not extending that benefit to OBC categories. It is also an admitted
position that at the time interim order was passed by a Division Bench of this Court
on 19.08.2008 which was later confirmed vide subsequent order dated 01.12.2008,
the appellant institutions had not been declared as minority educational institutions,
despite their claim to this effect. The only development which has taken place after
the order passed by the Division Bench on 01.12.2008, disposing of the said LPA,
has been the order passed by NCMEI, declaring the appellant institutions as
„minority educational institutions‟. We are of the view that the appellants cannot
be compelled to act contrary to the practice which these institutions had been
following till the academic year 2011-2012, in the matter of according reservation,
particularly when these institutions have since been declared to be „minority
educational institutions‟ by NCMEI. It is quite plausible to say that the letter dated
24.05.2012, issued by the University had referred to the practice followed by the
University and not the practice followed by the appellant institutions in the matter
of reservation and, therefore, vide this letter the University had called upon these
institutions to follow the practice prevalent „in the University‟, by giving
reservations to SC/ST as well as OBCs. But, if the learned senior counsel for the
appellants, while making statement on behalf of these institutions on 29.05.2012
had understood the letter to mean that these educational institutions were to follow
the same practice which they were following at that time, in the matter of
reservations, it would be fair to compel these institutions to give reservations to
OBCs, particularly when they have already been declared as „minority educational
institutions‟, by NCMEI which is the competent authority to decide with respect to
the status of an institution, claiming to be a „minority educational institution‟. The
order passed by NCMEI, being in favour of the appellants, they cannot be placed in
a situation, worse than the position, in which they were placed before the said order
was passed. So long as the order passed by NCMEI is in force, it would not be fair
and reasonable to direct the appellants to provide reservation strictly in terms of
the reservation policy of the University, when, admittedly, „minority educational
institutions‟, are under no obligation to provide such reservations. Also, any
direction, to accord reservation, would run counter to the order passed by the
Division Bench on 19.08.2008, which was extended on 01.12.2008, and continues
to remain in force.
9. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants states, on
instructions, that the appellants will continue to give reservation to SC and ST
applicants as per the practice followed by them till the year 2011-2012. This shall
be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the appellants in these appeals
as well as in the pending writ petitions. We, therefore, modify the order dated
29.05.2012 to the extent that though the appellants shall give reservations in
admissions for the year 2012-2012 to SC/ST categories, as per the norms of the
University of Delhi, they will not be obliged to provide any reservation for OBC
categories.
These LPAs stand disposed of. The observations made in this order shall not
affect the decision of the pending writ petitions.
All the pending applications also stand disposed of.
Dasti under the signature of Court Master.
V.K.JAIN
(VACATION JUDGE)
PRATIBHA RANI
(VACATION JUDGE)
JUNE 25, 2012
bg
