Deepak Dabas And Ors vs University Of Delhi And Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 4994 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                             Date of Decision: 30.10.2013

+      W.P.(C) 7269/2012

       AKANSHA GUPTA AND ORS                    ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr R.K. Saini, Adv.

                               versus

       UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS            ..... Respondent
                     Through: Mr Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Adv.

                                        And
+      W.P.(C) 7270/2012

       DEEPAK DABAS AND ORS                      ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr R.K. Saini, Adv.

                               Versus

       UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS             ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                                     JUDGMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)

The petitioners before this Court were the students of the School

of Open Learning, University of Delhi, in its undergraduate courses.

They appeared in the final year examination held in May-June, 2012 and

even before declaration of their result, they appeared in the entrance

examination for admission to various post graduate courses of the

University of Delhi, since, under the Rules of the University, they were

entitled to appear in the said test, while awaiting the result of their

qualifying examination. The petitioners were given admission in the

post graduate course and started studying in the said course. The

admission granted to the petitioners in the post graduate course,

however, was cancelled vide communication dated 19.11.2012 on the

ground that they had failed to submit the result of the graduate

examination in terms of the undertaking given by them at the time of

taking admission to the post graduate course. Being aggrieved from the

aforesaid cancellation, the petitioners are before this Court, seeking the

following relief:-

In W.P.(C) No. 7269/2012

(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 the respondents in cancelling on 19.11.2012 the provisional admission granted to the petitioners in July, 2012 in the post graduate course (M.Com/M.A.) after having qualified in the entrance test, merely on the ground that University has communicated 'no change' in the schedule of admissions notified on 28.05.2012 for the academic session 2012-13, (according to which the last date for submission of mark sheet of graduate degree examination was 31.08.2012) totally ignoring the factual

position that the result of graduation examination undertaking by the petitioners was to be declared by the university itself and the same has not been declared by it so far, being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unwarranted and irrational and in violation of the principles of equity, justice and good conscience and consequently the cancellation notices dated 19.11.2012.

(c) A writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith declare the result of the graduation examination undertaken by the petitioners in the month of May-1st week of June, 2012;

(d) A writ of Mandamus commanding Respondents to allow the petitioners to appear in the First Semester Examination of the Post Graduate Course (M.Com/M.A.), in which they were given admission in July, 2012 after qualifying in the Entrance Test;

(e) A Writ of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to pay the costs of the petitioner to the petitioner;

In W.P.(C) No. 7270/2012

(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 the respondents in cancelling on 19.11.2012 the provisional admission granted to the petitioners in July, 2012 in the post graduate course (M.Com/M.A.) after having qualified in the entrance test, merely on the ground that University has communicated 'no change' in the schedule of admissions notified on 28.05.2012 for the academic session 2012-13, (according to which the last date for submission of mark sheet of graduate degree examination was 31.08.2012) totally ignoring the factual position that the result of graduation examination

undertaking by the petitioners was to be declared by the university itself and the same in fact already stood declared on 29.9.2012/26.10.2012 and according to which the petitioners were qualified and eligible for admission but the University has not issued/sent the marksheet to the respondent No. 2 so far, being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unwarranted and irrational and in violation of the principles of equity, justice and good conscience and consequently the cancellation notices dated 19.11.2012.

(c) A writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to confirm the admission given to the petitioners in Post Graduate Courses (M.Com/M.A.) for the Academic Session 2012-13 and allow them to continue their studies and complete the course;

(d) A writ of Mandamus commanding Respondents to allow the petitioners to appear in the First Semester Examination of the Post Graduate Course (M.Com/M.A.), in which they were given admission in July, 2012 after qualifying in the Entrance Test;

(e) A Writ of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to pay the costs of the petitioner to the petitioner"

2. In its reply-affidavit, the respondent-University of Delhi has

stated that since there are as many as 3.5 lakhs students in the School of

Open Learning at the undergraduate level, the University conducts

examinations for such students separately from the examination for

regular students and there can be no synchronizing in declaring the

results of the regular students and the results of students admitted in the

School of Open Learning. The University has also expressed space

constraints due to which booklets of such students cannot be evaluated

in one go. The emphasis in the affidavit, therefore, is on the fact that

considering the large number of students admitted in School of Open

Learning and the infrastructural constraints, it is not possible to declare

their results along with the result of the regular students.

3. When these writ petitions came up for hearing, this Court,

noticing that the petitioners were not being issued admit cards for the

examination in the post graduate course, scheduled to commence from

22.11.2012 and having noticed that pursuant to provisional admission

granted to them in the post graduate course, they had attended classes

for more than four months, directed the University to permit them to

appear in the said examination, while making clear that no special

equities will flow in their favour. The result of the petitioners was

directed to be kept in a sealed cover.

Thereafter, vide another interim order dated 30.04.2013, the

petitioners were directed to appear in the second semester examination

of the post graduate course scheduled to commence from 06.05.2013

and their result was directed to be kept in a sealed cover.

4. This is not in dispute that the rules of the University permitted the

students appearing in the final year of the qualifying examination to

appear in the entrance test for admission to the post graduate courses

and it was under the aforesaid rule that the petitioners appeared in the

entrance test and were declared successful. The University does not

insist upon submission of the result of the qualifying graduate

examination before granting admission in the post graduate course and

the students who have appeared in the qualifying examination and

whose results have not been declared are granted provisional

admissions, on furnishing an undertaking to submit the result of the

qualifying graduate examination on or before the date stipulated in such

undertaking. The qualifying graduate examination, in which the

petitioners appeared in May-June, 2012, was conducted by none other

than Delhi University. Having allowed the petitioners to appear in the

entrance test and granted them provisional admission to the post

graduate course, even before declaration of the result of the qualifying

graduate examination, the University cannot now be allowed to take

advantage of its own delay in declaring the result of the qualifying

graduate examination. When the University requires such candidates

to furnish an undertaking to submit the result of the qualifying

examination by a particular date and grants provisional admission on

such an undertaking, it is expected that the University will declare the

results of the qualifying examination conducted by, it before the last

date stipulated in the undertaking for submission of such result expires.

The petitioners before this Court appeared in the entrance examination

for the post graduate course and took admission in the post graduate

course pursuant to the rules of the University. They also furnished

undertaking as required by the University. If they are unable to comply

with the undertaking on account of the delay in declaration of result

attributable solely to the University, the petitioners cannot be penalized

for the default in furnishing such an undertaking, since it is the

University alone which is responsible for their not being able to comply

with the said undertaking. I fail to appreciate how the University

without declaring the result of the qualifying examination can expect the

petitioners to comply with the undertaking, by furnishing the said result.

Unless and until results of the qualifying graduate examination are

declared by the University, it is impossible for the petitioners to comply

with the undertaking given to the University and no law can expects a

person to do impossible things.

5. The University, in my view, irrespective of whether the

examinees are regular students or the students of School of Open

Learning, should declare the result of the qualifying graduation

examination well in time so that a situation wherein the students are

unable to submit the result of the qualifying graduate examination does

not arise at all. It is for the University to create the infrastructure

required for declaration of the results of the students of the School of

Open Learning well in time and it would be wholly unfair if the

University does not allow the candidates who may have passed out their

qualifying graduate examination to pursue their post graduate course,

when the University itself allows such candidates not only to appear in

the entrance test for admission to the post graduate course, but also

grants them provisional admission to the said course.

6. In these petitions, I need not examine the question as to whether

the University would be entitled in law in not allowing the candidates

whose result of the qualifying graduate examination is not declared,

from taking admission to the higher course, since such a situation has

not arisen in these petitions, on account of the University having granted

them provisional admission to the post graduate course.

7. During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the

University referred to an order dated 09.10.2013 passed by a Division

Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4300/2013 tilted Fight for Human

Rights vs. Union of India and Ors. A perusal of the aforesaid order

would show that the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that none

of the affected students had come forward to file a petition and the

petitioner before the Court had not made any prior representation to the

University. It was also found that the petition was based only on a

newspaper cutting. The aforesaid order, therefore, would have

absolutely no bearing on the merits of these petitions.

8. The learned counsel for the University drew my attention to

clause 7.15 of the Prospectus, issued by the University for the year

2013-14 for admission to the undergraduate courses through School of

Open Learning. It is stated in the aforesaid clause that as per directions

received from the University vide its letter dated 10.05.2013, the

students are informed that the examination and the result schedule of the

School of Open Learning are different from that of regular streams of

University of Delhi. The aforesaid clause, in my view, is of no help to

the respondent-University for two reasons; firstly the petitioners before

this Court appeared in the final year examination of the undergraduate

course and thereafter took admission in the post graduate course of

Delhi University in the year 2012-13 and therefore, the communication

issued by the University on 10.05.2013 can have no application to them,

and secondly, the aforesaid information given to the candidates seeking

to take admission through School of Open Learning would have no

implication when the University allows such candidates to appear in the

entrance test for the post graduate courses and then grants them

provisional admission even prior to declaration of their result of

undergraduate examination. As noted earlier, the University cannot be

allowed to take advantage its own action by first requiring the

candidates to give an undertaking to furnish the result of the qualifying

examination by a particular date and then not declaring the result of the

said examination or before the deadline stipulated in the undertaking.

9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the respondent-University is

directed to declare the results of the qualifying graduate examination of

the petitioners within four weeks unless such a result has already been

declared. The University shall also declare the result of the post

graduate examination of such of the petitioners, who are declared to

have passed qualifying graduate examination within two weeks

thereafter and shall then allow them to pursue the post graduate course

in which they are studying. Such of the petitioners who do not pass the

qualifying graduate examination shall not be entitled to pursue the post

graduate course to which provisional admission was granted by the

University.

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

No order as to costs.

OCTOBER 30, 2013                                           V.K. JAIN, J.
BG