Delhi High Court
Ms Mamta vs University Of Delhi And Anr on 4 March, 2013
Author: G. S. Sistani
$~ 53
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 350/2013 & CM.727/2013
% Judgment dated 04.03.2013
MS MAMTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Monica Kapoor, Advocate
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Mohinder J. Rupal, Advocate for R=1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a rather peculiar case where the petitioner approached the
respondent for admission in B.Ed. programme 2012-13 under the OBC
category, after succeeding in the written examination as well as in the
interview in June, 2012. The course commenced from 23.7.2012 and the
petitioner started attending classes as well as the school experience
programme. In August, 2012, the petitioner was informed orally that her
OBC category, under which she had appeared, was not covered under the
reserved category of the Central List. Petitioner was also orally informed
that she could give a request in writing for consideration of her
candidature under the General category. The petitioner made an
application under the RTI Act seeking information regarding the marks
secured by her in the written examination and interview of the entrance
test of B.Ed. course 2012-13 and also the cut-off list of general category
students of the said examination.
2. The petitioner also made a request in writing to the respondent no.2 to
consider her candidature under the General Category. It is the case of the
petitioner that the respondents kept assuring her that she would be
considered under the general category. On this assurance the petitioner
kept attending classes and also school experience programme between the
months of August to December, 2012, however, on 11.12.2012, the
petitioner was shocked to receive a notice wherein she was informed that
she has been unauthorizedly attending classes and she was directed not to
attend classes in future.
3. Counsel for the petitioner contends that throughout the month of
December, 2012 petitioner continued to attend classes and when she was
stopped from attending the classes, she filed the present writ petition.
4. The case of the petitioner is that initially she applied under the OBC
category for getting admission in B.Ed. programme 2012-13, but when
she was informed in the month of August, 2012 that petitioner does not
belong to the OBC category of the Central List, she immediately
approached the respondent no.2 i.e. the head of the Department and
requested her to treat her admission in the general category. Counsel for
the petitioner submits that petitioner was under the bona fide belief that
the respondents were considering her request and she had no reason to
think otherwise else the respondent would not have permitted her to
attend classes and in fact her work was appreciated by one of the teachers,
copy of the appreciation letter has been placed on record. Ms.Kapoor
submits that only in December the respondents informed the petitioner not
to attend classes.
5. Counsel for the petitioner further contends that it is not in dispute that the
marks secured by the petitioner in the entrance test and interview were
above the cut-off marks of the general category and thus, there is no bar in
her being granted admission in the general category for the B.Ed.
programme 2012-13. It is also the case of the petitioner that she has been
diligently attending the classes and at this stage, if she is deprived of
admission for any technical reason, a girl child will be deprived of higher
education.
6. Mr.Rupal, counsel for the University submits that at no point of time the
petitioner was granted provisional admission as there is no such provision
for granting provisional admission. Counsel further submits that the
petitioner was never called upon to deposit her fee, and thus, the petitioner
was well aware that she had not been granted admission in the B.Ed.
course.
7. Counsel for the respondent next contends that initially petitioner was not
granted admission, as the result of her qualifying course had not been
declared but even after the result was declared and prior to the last date of
admission, the petitioner was declined admission, as the category of the
petitioner was not in the Central List. Counsel further submits that
petitioner could not have been granted admission in the general category,
as she herself has chosen not to apply in the General Category, the list of
which was finalized on 14.8.2012. It is further submitted by counsel for
the respondent that the petitioner attended classes at her own risk and peril
and no equity can flow in favour of the petitioner for her attending classes
in an unauthorized manner. Counsel also submits that even in case the
present petition is allowed, the petitioner would not have the requisite
attendance.
8. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their rival
submissions. I have described the case as a strange case for the reason
that the petitioner has secured higher marks than the cut-off in the general
category, but since she had chosen to apply under the reserved category,
petitioner was declined admission, as she did not belong to the OBC
category of the Central List. Since the OBC category of the petitioner
was covered under the Central List, in fact the petitioner‟s case should
have automatically been considered in the General category. Another
factor which makes this case different and strange is that a student is
permitted to attend classes from August to December, 2012, which is
unheard of when neither fee is accepted from the petitioner, nor formal
admission was granted.
9. It is not a case where the petitioner had mis-led the university or
suppressed any material fact or attended classes in a clandestine manner
or attended classes secretly. Her attending the classes was an open secret.
A teacher has also appreciated the work of the petitioner and yet her
attending classes have been termed as unauthorized. On 16.8.2012 the
following letter was addressed by the petitioner to the Head of the
Department, which is reproduced below:
"To,
The Head of the Department,
Central Institute of Education,
University of Delhi.
Sir,
I had got admission in B.Ed. under the OBC category but
just now I came to know that my caste does not come in the
central list. I want that if there is any seat vacant in General
category, please I may be granted admission in General category
from OBC category.
With thanks,
14/8/12
Mamta
104 „B‟
Received
Sd/- (12:15)
16/8/12
Have discussed
Please meet Prof Mittal."
10. There is no explanation in the counter affidavit, as to the fate of the above
said communication. In my view this communication is extremely vital,
as this was addressed by the petitioner to the respondent prior to the last
date of admissions, even though the petitioner did not appear in the
second round of counselling in the General category, it is not in dispute
that even on the last date i.e. 31.8.2012 when the petitioner was attending
classes, seats were lying vacant.
11. Having regard to the aforesaid facts where there is no explanation as to
why this petitioner was permitted to attend classes from August to
December, 2012, why the case of the petitioner was not converted from
the reserved category to the general category before the cut off date when
the petitioner made a request on 16.8.2012 especially when the petitioner
is a meritorious student and had secured marks higher than the marks of
the last person in the general category, the present petition is allowed.
The time spent in this court shall be deducted for the purposes of
attendance and subject to the condition that the petitioner attends all the
classes from 5.3.2013 onwards regularly. Petitioner is directed to deposit
the requisite fee and complete all other requisite formalities within three
days. This order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case and shall not be treated as a precedent.
12. The writ petition and the application stand disposed of, in above terms.
13. DASTI to counsel for the parties under the signatures of the Court Master.
G.S.SISTANI, J
MARCH 04, 2013
ssn
