Vishal Pannu vs University Of Delhi & Another
2013 Latest Caselaw 3651 Del

        *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                        Date of Decision: 21.08.2013

+       W.P.(C) 5051/2013
        VISHAL MAINA @ A.A. VISHAL CHAUDHARY               ..... Petitioner
                         Through: Mr Rajeshwer Kumar Gupta, Mr Ashok
                         Mahajan and Ms Sumati Sharma, Advs.
                         versus
        UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANOTHER                      ..... Respondent
                         Through: Mr Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Adv for R-1 and
                                  Mr Naresh C. Sharma, Adv for R-2 (Rajdhani
                                 College)

+       W.P.(C) 5071/2013
        VISHAL PANNU                                      ..... Petitioner
                         Through: Mr Rajeshwer Kumar Gupta, Mr Ashok
                         Mahajan and Ms Sumati Sharma, Advs.

                                Versus

    UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANOTHER                   ..... Respondent
                  Through: Mr Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Adv for R-1 and
                           Mr Naresh C. Sharma, Adv for R-2 (Rajdhani
                          College)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                                JUDGMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)

CM No. 11387/2013 (Exemption) in WP.(C) No. 5051/2013 and CM No. 11431/2013 in W.P.(C)5071/2013

Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

The applications stand disposed of.

WP.(C) Nos. 5051/2013 and CM No. 11386/2013 (directions to respondent No. 2 to expedite the admission process based on 5% seats reserved for sports quota) and W.P(C) No. 5071/2013 and CMs No. 11430 & 432/2013 (under section 151 CPC)

As per the prospectus, issued by respondent No. 2 Rajdhani College for

admission to various courses in the said college, it was mandatory to provide sports

facilities and encourage all the students to participate in sports and extra-curricular

activities by introducing inter-class competition and mass sports. For the purpose

of encouraging sports facilities and admitting students, who are strong in sports, the

prospectus, issued by the college stipulated as under:-

"The existing provision of not more than 5% sports and ECA quota (subject-wise) be continued. The College should be free to decide the actual number seats to be filled on sports basis (nor more than 5%) keeping in view the facilities available, requirement of the college and other relevant factors.)

The guidelines for admission under Sports/ECA categories will be carried out as per notification No. Aca.I/Sports/2012/82 dated 18.05.2012 and Aca.I/82/ECA/2012/163 dated 5 June, 2012 respectively."

2. Vide letter No. Aca/I/082/Sports/ECA/2013/169, dated 06.06.2013,

respondent No. 1, University of Delhi, issued updated guidelines for admission on

the basis of sports to the under-graduate courses for the Academic Session 2013-

2014. The said guidelines were sent to all the colleges, including respondent No.

2-Rajdhani College, for necessary compliance. The guidelines, issued by

University provide for composition of the Sports Admission Committee and the

relevant clause reads as under:-

"G. Composition of the Sports Admission Committee:

a. Chairperson: Principal b. Convenor: Teacher in-charge Dept. of Physical Education c. Physical Education Teacher(s) as Member(s) d. One Expert nominated by college out of the confidential list given by Delhi University Sport Council.

e. Only one Faculty Member nominated by the Staff Council f. One regular bona-fide sports-student representative (M/W for assistance) g. One Delhi University Sports Council Representative/Nominee h. One Vice Chancellor nomine (as Observer)"

3. Thus, one member of the Sports Admission Committee was to be nominated

by the Staff Council of Rajdhani College. It appears that no meeting of the Staff

Council was convened or could be convened for the purpose of making nomination

to the Sports Admission Committee and the Principal of the college, in exercise of

the emergency powers conferred upon her, under Ordinance 18 clause 6(B) (e),

issued by University of Delhi, nominated Ms Suman Meena, a Faculty Member to

the Sports Admission Committee. The above-referred Ordinance, to the extent it is

relevant, provides that though the Principal is required to implement the decisions

of the Staff Council, he, in case any emergency has arisen, which requires that

immediate action to be taken, can take such action as deemed necessary, but shall

report the same in the next meeting of the Staff Council for the purpose of

confirmation of his action. Thus, in exercise of the emergency powers, the

Principal of the College could make a nomination to the Sports Admission

Committee. Whether there was any emergency warranting such an exercise of

power is a question, which would not arise in this case since the action of the

Principal is not under challenge. However, in emergency meeting of the Staff

Council held on 31.07.2013, the aforesaid nomination by the Principal was not

approved and, therefore, the Staff Council did not make any admissions in the

Sports Quota for the Academic Session 2013-2014.

4. The petitioners before this Court had applied for admission to Rajdhani

College under the Sports Quota. Both the petitioners were subjected to Sports trial,

as stipulated in clause (ii) of the consolidated Guidelines/Criteria, issued by the

University for admission on the basis of Sports Quota. The list of the candidates,

who were granted admission on the basis of Sports Quota, was required to be

displayed on the Notice Board of the College on 31.07.2013. However, on account

of the decision taken by the Staff Council in its meeting held on 30.07.2013, no

such list was displayed. Being aggrieved from such action of the college, the

petitioners are before this Court by way of this writ petition, seeking the following

reliefs:-

a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to complete the admission process by filling up the seats in the first year of the under graduate courses against 5% seats reserved for sports quota;

b) further issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioner for admission to Bachelor with Honor Four year course (in WP(C) No.5051/2013)/ B-Tech (Computer Science) (in WP(C) No. 5071/2013) against a seat reserved for sports quota."

5. In its counter-affidavit, respondent No. 2 Rajdhani College has not disputed

the factual position as noted in the preceding paragraph. The only reason given in

the counter-affidavit for not making admissions under the Sports Quota is that the

nomination made by the Principal of the college to the Sports Admission

Committee was not confirmed by the Staff Council, who rather decided not to

make any admission in the Sports Quota. In my view, the reason given by

respondent No. 2-Rajdhani College for not making admissions under the Sports

Quota is wholly arbitrary, irrational and illogical. It is the policy of the University

to encourage sports activities in the colleges and the admissions under the Sports

Quota are intended to achieve that objective by encouraging those candidates, who

excelled in various sports activities. Having notified in the prospectus that there

would be admissions under the Sports Quota as per the policy of the University, it

was not open to respondent No. 2 to recall the earlier decision of the college to

make such admissions, after the candidates had already been subjected to sports

trial, in accordance with the guidelines issued by the University. Moreover, this is

not the case of Rajdhani College that it did not need sports persons and that is why

it decided to do away with admissions under Sports Quota. The very fact that the

college had declared a Sports Quota in the prospectus, issued for the year 2013-

2014 clearly indicates that this college does need sports persons and that is why it

had conducted sports trial for admission under the said quota. The only reason

given by the college for not making admissions even after selecting candidates on

the basis of parameters laid down by the University is that nomination of one

member of the Sports Admission Committee was bad, the same having not been

confirmed by the Staff Council. A perusal of the guidelines issued by the

University would show that there are as many as eight members of the Sports

Admission Committee. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel

representing the college admitted that the selections made by the Sports Admission

Committee were unanimous. Therefore, even if the nomination of the faculty

member by the Principal is excluded from consideration that would make no

difference to the recommendations of the Sports Admission Committee, though, in

my view, considering that the Principal of the college had acted in exercise of the

emergency powers conferred upon him under Ordinance XVIII, issued by the

University, any decision by the Staff Council not to confirm that decision cannot be

used as a ground not to make admissions or to reject the recommendations made by

the Sports Admission Committee, which inter alia, included a faculty member,

nominated by the Principal of the College. Assuming that there was a nomination

to the Sports Committee by the Staff Council, and such nominee would not have

agreed with the recommendations of the other members, that would have been no

consequence, as the recommendations of the Sports Committee were not

necessarily to be unanimous. In any case, nomination being an internal matter of

the college, any difference between the Principal and the Staff Council in this

regard cannot prejudice the rights and interests of the candidates, subjected to

sports trials.

6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, respondent No. 2 is directed to declare

the list of the candidates selected under the Sports Quota within two days from

today and make admissions accordingly subject to completion of necessary

requirements.

The writ petitions stand disposed of.

A copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of Court Master.

V.K. JAIN, J

AUGUST 21, 2013 BG