Delhi High Court
Vani vs University Of Delhi And Ors on 30 April, 2013
Author: G. S. Sistani
$~38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2251/2013
% Judgment dated 30.04.2013
VANI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Arun Khatri, Adv.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Manish Singh, Adv. for R1-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227
of the Constitution of India seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature
of mandamus directing the respondents to confirm her admission, allow
her to attend the classes and permit her to sit in M.Sc second semester
examinations, to be held in May, 2013.
2. As per the petition, the petitioner completed her B.Sc programme from
Hans Raj College, in the year 2012. After completing her B.Sc, the
petitioner applied for M.Sc. (OR) in the Department of Mathematical
Sciences, University of Delhi. The petitioner secured admission in the
MS.c (OR) after being successful in the entrance exam, group discussion
and interview. The petitioner was offered admission by Hindu College
and at present the petitioner is in the second semester of M.Sc (OR). The
petitioner was granted provisional admission since her result of B.Sc
(Final) had not been declared. In August, 2012, the petitioner received her
B.Sc (Final) result, which was submitted by her to respondent no.2. As
per the result of B.Sc (Final) the petitioner had two essential repeats. This
fact was conveyed to the respondents in August, 2012. The petitioner
appeared in the essential repeats in October, 2012, however, she
continued with her studies in M.Sc (OR). In the month of October, 2012,
the petitioner appeared for her internal assessment exams of the first
semester of M.Sc (OR) and in the month of December, 2012, the
petitioner appeared in the first semester exam of M.Sc (OR) subject to the
condition that her admission would be contingent on her successfully
clearing her essential repeats in B.Sc (Final). In January, 2013, the second
semester of M.Sc (OR) commenced, however, the petitioner was not
allowed to attend the classes. The petitioner made enquiries from the
respondents but no satisfactory response was received. The petitioner in
the meanwhile kept waiting for her result in the essential repeats in B.Sc
(Final) and in the month of February, 2013, she deposited fee for the
M.SC second semester examination.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that although the fee for M.SC second
semester examination was accepted by the respondents but she was not
allowed to attend classes. The result of the essential repeats of B.Sc
(Final) was declared on 8.3.2013 as per which the petitioner cleared the
essential repeats and the result was submitted with respondent no.2. A
copy of the result has been filed along with the writ petition. Since the
provisional admission of the petitioner in M.Sc (OR) has not been
confirmed by the respondents this has led to the filing of the present writ
petition.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is guilty of
concealment of facts and has not approached this Court with clean hands.
It is further submitted that the petitioner was not eligible for admission in
M.Sc (OR) course as she had failed to clear her B.Sc Physical Science
Final examination before the cut off date for admission to M.Sc (OR)
course. It is next submitted that the petitioner had qualified the Common
Entrance Test consisting of written test, group discussion and interview,
and accordingly the petitioner was offered provisional admission in M.Sc
(OR) course since her result was awaited. It is contended that a notice
dated 24.8.2012 was displayed on the Notice Board of the Department of
Operational Research, Faculty of Mathematical Sciences, which clearly
mentioned that the first semester students of M.Sc (OR) were required to
submit their final year graduation mark sheet by 31.8.2012 or else their
admission would be cancelled. The petitioner submitted her B.Sc Physical
Science (Final) result wherein she had obtained two essential repeats and,
thus, was not eligible for admission to the M.Sc (OR) course. Counsel
also contends that after scrutinising the documents available of three
students including the petitioner herein a note sheet dated 20.11.2012 was
submitted to the Controller of Examinations by the then Head of the
Department of Operational Research to seek a suggestion as to whether
the petitioner and two other students could be allowed to appear in the
first semester examination of M.Sc (OR), however, on 7.12.2012 the
Controller of Examination sent the said note sheet to the Department of
Operational Research along with a noting that the admission of the
petitioner and two other students must be cancelled with immediate effect.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner
was allowed to appear in the first semester examination of M.Sc (OR)
subject to an undertaking that the petitioner would herself be responsible
in case the respondents disqualify the petitioner from the said
examination. The admission of similarly two other students also stands
cancelled. Counsel also submits that the petitioner was well aware of the
fact that she did not meet the eligibility criteria for admission to the M.Sc
(OR) as she had two essential repeats and provisional admission was
granted to her only to await the final year result of the B.Sc, which she
had to qualify to seek admission in M.Sc (OR). It is further contended that
the petitioner was not permitted to attend classes since January, 2013, but
she did not approach this Court at the first opportunity available. Since the
petitioner was aware that at that point of time her result for essential
repeat in B.Sc (Final) had not been declared, she would be unable to
justify as to how she would meet the eligibility criteria.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a vested right has been
created in favour of the petitioner as she was granted provisional
admission, she was allowed to attend classes, permitted to appear in the
first semester examination and, thus, she cannot be denied admission to
the second semester.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival
submissions. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was granted provisional
admission upon her being successful in clearing the Common Entrance
Test for the M.Sc (OR) course. It is also not in dispute that the
respondents had fixed a cut off date as 31.8.2012 for students to submit
their final year graduation marksheet. When the result of the petitioner for
M.Sc (Final) was declared she did not clear the B.Sc (Final) examination
as she had two essential repeats. In effect in case the result of the
petitioner had been declared prior to her having been granted provisional
admission she would not have been offered provisional admission as she
did not met the eligibility criteria.
8. There is no force in the submission made by counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner was allowed to appear in the first semester examination of
M.Sc (Final) and, thus, a vested right has been created in favour of the
petitioner. The petitioner has suppressed the fact that she had voluntarily
signed an undertaking that she would be appearing in the first semester
examination of M.Sc (OR) at her own risk and she would abide by the
decision of the University and further that she would be responsible if the
examination Incharge cancels her admission. A copy of this undertaking
has been placed on record by the respondents. There is also merit in the
submission made by learned counsel for the respondents that the
petitioner intentionally did not approach this Court soon after she received
the letter of cancellation as by that date the result of reappear had not been
declared and she was fully aware that even on that date i.e. January, 2013,
she did not meet the eligibility criteria. On the contrary there is no
explanation by the petitioner as to why the petitioner did not approach this
Court uptill 5.4.2013. Since the petitioner did not meet the eligibility
criteria no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is
without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J
APRIL 30, 2013
neelam
