Aman Singh Shirnet vs University Of Delhi & Anr
2013 Latest Caselaw 5420 Del

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

                                            Date of Decision: 25.11.2013

+       W.P.(C) 7205/2013 and CM No.15508/2013(for directions)

        AMAN SINGH SHIRNET
                                                       ..... Petitioner
                          Through:Ms.Anisha Upadhyay, Advocate

                          versus
        UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR
                                                     ..... Respondents
                          Through:Mr.Mohinder J.S.Rupal, Adv. for
                          Respondent.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

                             JUDGEMENT

V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)

The following directions were issued by this Court in WP (C)

No.5074/2013 on 25.9.2013:

"i. the respondent - Delhi University shall re-work the results of all the candidates who appeared in BMS Entrance Examination - 2013 in terms of this order, within one (1) week from today and shall immediately thereafter display the revised results on its website.

ii. Within ten (10) days from today, the respondent- University shall issue public notice requiring candidates five times the number of seats available in each category, who were not offered admission during the previous counseling, to

attend counseling on a date which the University may fix in this regard for the purpose of making admission to the seats which have since fallen vacant. The aforesaid notice shall also be displayed on the website of the University.

iii. Petitioner No.2 in WP (C) No.5424/2013 who has taken admission in B.R. Ambedkar college which was not her first preference, as well as petitioner No.11 in the aforesaid writ petition who did not take admission since the college offered to him was not the college of his choice shall also be entitled to participate in the aforesaid admission process on the basis of their revised merit. In case, they get admission against vacant seats, the seats vacated by them shall be offered to the other candidates participating in the admission process.

iv. The entire admission process shall be completed by the University as expeditiously as possible so as to avoid any loss of seats to the candidates.

v. The candidates who were called for the third round of counseling but did not appear for the said counseling shall not be entitled to participate in the admission process. However, those candidates who despite participation in the third round of counseling were not offered any admission in the said counseling shall be entitled to participate in the admission process.

vi. The University shall make it clear to the candidates that mere admission at a late stage shall not entitle them to any exemption/relaxation in the matter of attendance as per Rules of the University. If, however, there is a provision in the Rules of the University for any relaxation in the attendance requirement, they can request the University for grant of such relaxation and if made such request shall be considered by the University as per its rules and norms."

2. Pursuant to the said directions, the respondent/University of Delhi

held counseling for admission to the BMS Course of the University of

Delhi on 10th October, 2013. The petitioner and four other candidates,

namely, Anisha Vijya, Krishna Wadhwa, Sanchit Kukreja and Sneh

Kakkar had obtained the same rank i.e. 917 in the entrance test for

admission to the aforesaid course. One out of these five persons,

namely, Sneh Kakkar, did not appear at the time of counseling. The

remaining four persons were considered for the last 3 seats available in

the said course. Since the petitioner before this Court was the youngest

amongst the 4 candidates, he could not get admission as the Rules of the

University provide that in case of a tie for rank in the merit list, the rank

is to be decided on the basis of the Date of Birth and the candidate

senior in age is to be given preference in admission. However, at least

one more seat fell vacant on that day, since a candidate who was granted

admission did not deposit the requisite fee.

3. The admission letter issued to the successful candidates clearly

stipulated that the time for payment of fee will not be extended in any

case and the candidates were required to pay the prescribed fee at the

counseling site itself, meaning thereby that the fee was required to be

deposited then and there at the place where the counseling was held, on

the very day on which the counseling was held. The grievance of the

petitioner is that though a few seats including the above-referred seat

became available on that very day on account of some of the candidates

not depositing the fee, he has not been considered for admission against

such seats.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that in terms of

the directions of the Court, the counseling was held on 10th October,

2013 and out of the candidates who appeared for the counseling

admissions were granted against the seats which were available on that

day. He further submits that if any seat falls vacant, the University

cannot keep on making admissions against such seats thereby making its

admission an open ended process. He also submits that in any case, the

counseling held on 10th October, 2013 was a special counseling held

pursuant to the directions issued by the Court.

5. In my view, equity, fair play and justice demand that since at least

one seat had become available on that very day on which the counseling

was held, the petitioner ought to have been considered against such a

seat. In fact, the petitioner has lost admission only on account of his

being younger in age, though his name was placed at Serial No.134

whereas other persons who had got the same rank were placed at Serial

No.135, 136, 137 and 138 of the list of candidates dated 5 th October,

2013.

6. Since it is not in dispute that at least one seat became available on

the day of counseling i.e. 10th October, 2013 on account of failure of

one of the candidates to deposit the fee with the representative of Bhim

Rao Ambedkar College who was present at the site of counseling, it is

directed that the petitioner shall be granted admission against the

aforesaid seat, subject to his completing all the formalities in this regard

within three working days. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner

will not be entitled to any relaxation as a matter of right, in the

attendance on account of this late admission granted to him and if any

relaxation in attendance requirement is sought, that would be considered

only in terms of the order dated 25 th September, 2013 passed by this

Court in WP(C) No.5074/2013.

The petition and the pending CM stand disposed of.

A copy of this order be given dasti.

V.K. JAIN, J NOVEMBER 25, 2013/ks