Shri Siddharth Bansal vs University Of Delhi & Anr
2013 Latest Caselaw 5051 Del

6
$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      LPA 735/2013

       SHRI SIDDHARTH BANSAL                ..... Appellant
                    Through: Mr. Pawanjit S. Bindra, Advocate.

                         versus

       UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR            ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate.

%                                 Date of Decision: 01st November, 2013

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

                         JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)

1. Present Letters Patent appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 10th September, 2013. The learned Single Judge after agreeing with the appellant's submission disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent-University of Delhi that if any seat in the General category was available in MBA in Faculty of Management Studies, University of Delhi for the academic year 2013-2015, the appellant- petitioner be considered for that seat on the basis of his rank as a General category candidate. However, as no seat was available, appellant was not granted admission.

2. The relevant facts in the present appeal are that appellant applied to the Faculty of Management Studies, University of Delhi seeking admission in Master of Business Administration (Full Time) for academic session 2013-2015 under Defence Quota as Ward of Defence Personnel disabled in peace time with disability attributable to military service. Considering the number of seats available in Defence Quota, appellant could not get admission in the said category. The grievance of the appellant in the writ petition was that he was not considered for admission against the seat in a General category though considering his overall rank, he would have got admission as a General category candidate.

3. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order held in appellant's favour. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the stipulation prohibiting change of category appears only in the clause which deals with OBC candidates. On a careful perusal of the aforesaid clause it is quite evident that it is only the OBC candidates who are not allowed change of category at any time after submission of the application. There is no general clause prohibiting across the board change of category. Therefore, nothing in the procedure prohibited the candidates applying under the category of "Children of Widows of Eligible Armed Forces Personnel" from seeking admission as general category. The respondent-University, therefore, was not justified in refusing the request of the petitioner for considering him in the category of general category."

4. Mr. Pawanjit S. Bindra, learned counsel for appellant submits that learned Single Judge having reached the conclusion that University's decision was wrong, ought to have directed the respondent to create a seat

for the appellant. Mr. Bindra further submits that appellant cannot be made to suffer for the fault of the respondent-University. In support of his submissions, he relies upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, Through its Principal vs Sanjay Gulati and Others, (1983) 3 SCC 517 and Asha vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma Univesity of Health Sciences, (2012) 7 SCC 389.

5. Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, learned counsel for respondent-University states that as of now all seats are filled and no seat has fallen vacant for MBA even after closure of admission on 31st October, 2013. Even otherwise, he states that teaching for the first semester is almost over. Mr.Rupal submits that the Supreme Court's judgments referred to by learned counsel for appellant are inapplicable to the facts of the present case as the semester examination is to commence from 12th November, 2013.

6. In rejoinder, Mr. Bindra, learned counsel for appellant states that in view of the teaching of the first semester being nearly over, appellant prays for admission in the Master of Business Administration (Full Time) in the forthcoming academic session i.e. 2014-2016.

7. Keeping in view the fact that the judgment of the learned Single Judge has not been challenged by the respondent and appellant is at no fault, this Court directs the respondent-University to grant admission to appellant in next academic session i.e. 2014-2016 without any further examination. The Supreme Court in similar circumstances in Parmender Kumar and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others, (2012) 1 SCC 177 has held as under:-

"32. We, accordingly, have no hesitation in allowing the appeals and setting aside the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

However, we appear to be facing the same problem, as was faced by this Court in Vinay Rampal case. The counselling process in these appeals was to be conducted on 6-4-2011 and the academic session was to commence on 10-5-2011. In other words, the appellants have already lost about six months of the courses in question. As was observed in Vinay Rampal case, the sands of time had run out which is inevitable in judicial process. Following the same reasoning, as was adopted in the aforesaid case, we direct that the appellants shall be admitted in the postgraduate or diploma courses, for which they have been selected, for the new academic year without any further test or selection."

8. Consequently, present appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

MANMOHAN, J

CHIEF JUSTICE

NOVEMBER 01, 2013 js