Delhi High Court
Mohd. Khalid Zia vs Jamia Millia Islamia & Ors. on 25 October, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 25.10.2013
+ WP(C) No.5250 of 2013
MOHD. KHALID ZIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Adv.
versus
JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rohit Gandhi & Ms. Manpreet
Kaur, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
JUDGMENT
V.K.JAIN, J. (Oral)
The petitioner before this Court appeared in the Entrance Test for
taking admission in BA (Hons.) History Course of the respondent-Jamia
Millia Islamia University. A list of selected candidates as well as wait-
listed candidates for the aforesaid Course was displayed on 24.6.2013,
in terms of the admission schedule for the academic session 2013-2014.
As per the aforesaid schedule, 4.7.2013 was the last date for completing
admission formalities of the selected candidates, 5.7.2013 was the date
for registration of the wait-listed candidates, 8.7.2013 was the date for
the display of registered wait-listed candidates and the admission from
the registered wait-listed candidates was to commence from 9.7.2013.
The classes were to commence on 16.7.2013.
2. The respondent-University displayed a list of students admitted
from the list of registered wait-listed candidates on 8.7.2013 but the
name of the petitioner did not figure in the said list. This was followed
by similar lists displayed on 10.7.2013 & 15.7.2013. The name of the
petitioner did not figure in the aforesaid lists as well. Consequently, the
petitioner did not get admission up to 15.7.2013. However, despite the
fact that the classes were to commence on 16.7.2013, the University
displayed further lists of candidates admitted from amongst the
registered wait-listed candidate on 18.7.2013, 26.7.2013, 1.8.2013,
6.8.2013, 19.8.2013 and 19.8.2013. The name of the petitioner figured
in the list displayed on 26.7.2013.
3. The case of the petitioner is that since his name did not figure in
the lists displayed on 8.7.2013, 10.7.2013 & 15.7.2013, he left for his
home town on 16.7.2013 from where he returned only on 13.8.2013, and
then he came to know that his name had figured in the list displayed on
26.7.2013. The petitioner claims to have made a representation to the
University on 14.8.2013 seeking admission to the aforesaid Course.
Having not been granted admission, he has filed this writ petition
seeking the following reliefs:
"a. A writ of certiorari calling for the records of the case and
peruse the same;
b. a writ of certiorari quashing the action on the part of
respondents in not giving admission against the vacant seat of
B.A. (H) in History under the Muslim OBC category for the
session 2013-15, Jamia Millia Islamia University to the
petitioner despite his being qualified in the entrance test
conducted by the respondent Jamia and secured third position in
the waiting list and all the more some seats are still vacant
which are going to be waste, in violation of the principles of
equity, justice and good conscience and in infringement of legal
an fundamental rights of the petitioner;
c. A writ of Mandamus commanding respondents to
forthwith give admission to the petitioner in the B.A. (H) in
History under the Muslim OBC category for the session 2013-
15, Jamia Millia Islamia University."
4. In its short affidavit, the respondent-University has stated that as
per the mechanism which was duly conveyed to the candidates no
personal intimation was to be sent to the candidates with respect to the
declaration of the results and the candidates were required to keep on
checking its Notice Board and website till the admissions were closed
by the University. The learned counsel for the respondent-University
also states that the admission was made strictly in accordance with the
admission procedure and the notification issued on 18.7.2013 whereby
the last date for making admissions was extended up to 30.8.2013.
5. Admittedly, while displaying the lists of the candidates whose
names were included in the list of registered wait-listed candidates and
who were granted admissions, the respondent-University did not even
indicate that it will also be publishing further lists of the candidates
whose names are included in the list of registered wait-listed candidates
and who are granted admissions on subsequent dates. A perusal of the
lists displayed by the University would show that this contained only the
particulars of the candidates who were granted admission from the
waiting list. No intimation by way of the said list was given to the
candidates that the University will come out with further list(s)
containing the names of the candidates from the waiting list who are
granted admission to the aforesaid Course. As a result, when the
petitioner, on seeing the list published on 15.7.2013, found that his name
did not figure in the said list and the classes were to commence on
16.7.2013, had no reason to assume that the University will come out
with further list(s) of the candidates whose names were included in the
waiting list of registered wait-listed candidates and who were later
granted admissions to the aforesaid Course. It was on this assumption
that the petitioner went to his native place assuming that he has not been
able to get admission to the aforesaid Course.
6. In my view, it was imperative for the University while publishing
the list of candidates from the waiting list who were granted admission
to the aforesaid Course, to notify the candidates in advance that it would
be coming out with further list(s) containing names of the candidates
who are granted admissions to the said course. In the absence of such a
prior notice, any unsuccessful candidate would assume that he will not
be able to get admission to the aforesaid Course. Since the classes were
to commence on 16.7.2013, the candidate would be justified in
assuming that thereafter there will be no further admission from
amongst the candidates whose names were placed in the waiting list.
Had the University given advance notice in the list published on
15.7.2013 that it may come out with further list(s) containing names of
the candidates from the waiting list who are granted admissions to the
B.A. (H) History Course the petitioner in all probability would have
continued to stay in Delhi instead of going to his native place and
thereby losing a chance to take admission to the Course in which he had
sought admission.
7. Admittedly the list published on 26.7.2013 as also the subsequent
lists contained names of the candidate(s) who ranked lower in the
ranking as compared to the petitioner. This resulted in a situation where
a person who had secured lesser marks was able to get admission but the
petitioner did not get an opportunity to take admission, on account of
default committed by the University in not giving advance notice to the
candidates that it would continue to come out with further lists
containing names of the candidates granted admission to the aforesaid
Course. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for no fault on his part,
particularly when a seat in the aforesaid Course is still available
pursuant to an interim order dated 23.8.2013 passed by this Court and
also considering that even thereafter, admissions have been granted by
the respondent-University till 29.8.2013 though not in the same category
to which the petitioner belongs but in the same Course, for which he had
applied.
8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the respondent-University is
directed to grant admission to the petitioner to the B.A. (H) History
Course subject to his completing the requisite formalities in this regard
within one (1) week from today.
9. For the purpose of computing attendance in the first semeter, the
total number of classes available to the petitioner shall be computed
only w.e.f. the date he is given admission by the University.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
OCTOBER 25, 2013 V.K. JAIN, J.
b'nesh
