Delhi High Court
Sunny Goel vs Shri Ram College Of Commerce And ... on 25 August, 2014
Author: Manmohan
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4415/2014
SUNNY GOEL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Goel, Advocate with
Mr. Pranav Sapra, Advocate.
Versus
SHRI RAM COLLEGE OF COMMERCE
AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocate with
Ms. Senjul Khanna, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Saurabh Banerjee, Advocate for
R-2.
Mr. R.K. Singh, Advocate with
Ms. Deepa Rai, Advocate for R-3.
Reserved on : 14th August, 2014
% Date of Decision : 25th August, 2014
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J:
CM APPL. 8835/2014 in W.P.(C) 4415/2014
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 4415/2014 & CM APPL. 8834/2014
1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondents
to give admission to petitioner in undergraduate course of B.Com (H) in Shri
Ram College of Commerce (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent-College')
for Academic Year 2014-15.
2. The relevant facts of the present case are that on 29th May, 2014 Class
XII results were declared in which petitioner secured 98% marks in best of
four subjects excluding English. But after including English in the best of
four subjects, petitioner's percentage got reduced to 95.5%.
3. In accordance with respondent-CBSE's interlinked and graded
procedure, petitioner on 31st May, 2014 applied for rechecking / verification
of marks.
4. However, as his marks did not increase on rechecking, petitioner on
21st June, 2014 applied under the second stage for obtaining photocopy of
the evaluated answer book of English paper.
5. As soon as photocopy of the answer book was provided, petitioner on
3rd July, 2014 applied for the third stage, i.e., re-evaluation.
6. In re-evaluation, petitioner's marks in English increased from 87% to
95%. This increased the best of four including English from 95.5% to
97.5%.
7. On 11th June, 2014, respondent-CBSE issued petitioner's revised mark
sheet and on the same day, petitioner met the Principal of the respondent-
College and furnished the revised mark sheet. Even though students with
97.5% had been admitted in first cut-off and students with 97.25% in the
second cut-off, yet the Principal of respondent-College refused to admit the
petitioner in B.Com (H).
8. Since despite representation to respondent-College and respondent-
University nothing materialized, petitioner on 17th July, 2014 filed the
present writ petition.
9. Mr. Sunil Goel, learned counsel for petitioner stated that action of
respondent-College affiliated to respondent-University in denying admission
to petitioner because of delay by respondent-CBSE in releasing result of re-
evaluation of petitioner's answer book of English paper was harsh, unfair,
irrational, arbitrary, malafide, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14
and 21 of the Constitution.
10. Mr. Goel submitted that this Court in almost identical facts in Ms.
Jainidh Kaur (Through Her Next Friend and Natural Guardian, Sh.
Sarabjeet Singh) Vs. St. Stephen College and Ors., W.P.(C) 4410/2010 had
recorded respondent-University's undertaking that the University shall admit
all students even if they produced their mark sheet after re-evaluation till the
last cut-off date irrespective of availability of seats. He further stated that
initially the prescribed period of admission was June 24 th to July 22nd, 2014
but the same was revised to July 1st to 29th, 2014 owing to the controversy
on FYUP. The orders passed by learned Single Judge as well as the Division
Bench in the aforesaid cases are reproduced hereinbelow:-
A) Order dated 7th July, 2010 passed by learned Single Judge:
"1. The petitioner had appeared for the board examination
conducted by the respondent no.3 CBSE for Class XII. The
petitioner being not satisfied with her result as declared applied
for re-checking. On such re-checking, the marks of the
petitioner were substantially increased. The petitioner in the
meanwhile had applied to the respondent no.1 college falling
under the respondent no.2 University of Delhi, on the basis of
her then existing marks and on the basis whereof the petitioner
did not qualify for admission to the respondent no.1 college.
The petitioner after the result of re-checking and as per which
she was / is eligible, applied for admission but which has been
denied on the ground that the admissions have already closed.
2. There appear to be no rules of the respondent no.2 University
of Delhi to deal with the cases of re-checking. In the absence of
any provision for admission of students eligible on the basis of
revised marks, the entire exercise of re-checking loses meaning.
3. Issue notice.
4. Notice is accepted by the counsels for the respondents
no.1,2and3. Reply/counter affidavit be filed within one week.
4. The petitioner by way of her application for interim relief
seeks reservation of a seat in the respondent no.1 college in BA
(Hons.) Economics Course. The counsel for the respondent no.1
college states that all the seats have already been filled up. If
any seat falls vacant in the meanwhile, the same be not filled up
till the next date of hearing.
List on 23rd July, 2010.
(emphasis supplied)
B) Order dated 23rd July, 2010 passed by learned Single Judge:
"1. The counsel for the respondent no.1 College states that the
respondent no.1 College would interview the petitioner within
one week of today and place her in the wait list as per her score
and admit the petitioner in the event of any vacancy occurring
in the BA (Hons.) Economics Course.
2. The senior counsel for the petitioner states that the
respondent no.1 College, inspite of the order dated 7th July,
2010 has admitted one Ms. Anjali Sinha, first wait listed
candidate in BA (Hons.) Economics Course. It is contended that
in view of the interim order dated 7th July, 2010, the
said candidate could not have been admitted. He further states
that there is a provision in the Admission Guidelines of the
respondent no.1 College, a copy of which has been handed over
in the Court, of creation of "supernumerary" seats.
It is contended that since the marks of the petitioner are 1.25%
above the cut- off marks for BA (Hons.) Economics, the
petitioner be taken as a "supernumerary" candidate, even if no
vacancy occurs. In the alternative, it is contended that the
petitioner be admitted in the vacancy ,if any, in the reserved
categories as per Surya Prateek Singh Vs. Vice Chancellor,
Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University 2009(4) AD
(Delhi) 644.
3. The counsel for the respondent no.1 College to take
instructions on all these aspects.
4. The counsel for the respondent no.2 University of Delhi to,
also by the next date of hearing inform the Court about the
proposal of the University to deal with such situation in future.
List on 3rd August, 2010."
C) Order dated 3rd August, 2010 passed by learned Single Judge:
"3. This Court also while issuing notice of the petition on 7th
July, 2010 had observed that there appear to be no Rules of the
respondent no.2 University of Delhi to deal with the cases of
candidates who apply to respondent no.3 CBSE for re-checking
and in the absence of any provision for admission of
students eligible on the basis of the revised/rechecked marks,
the entire exercise of re-checking loses the meaning.
4. The counsel for the respondent no.3 CBSE which conducts
the qualifying exam for admission to the respondent no.2
University of Delhi states that about 3/4 weeks are required for
re-checking from the date of receipt of fee for re-checking.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petition qua the petitioner
in disposed of as having become infructuous.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
7. List before the PIL Bench on 22nd September, 2010."
D) Order dated 22nd September, 2010 passed by the Division Bench:
"Ms. Maninder Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the
Delhi University submitted that the University is already taking
steps to frame a policy to solve the problem. As far as the
CBSE is concerned, let guidelines be framed as regard to
rechecking so that the students are not affected while seeking
admission in the University.
The authorities of the Delhi University shall work in harmony
with the competent authorities of the CBSE and may carve out a
comprehensive solution to the problem in issue."
(emphasis supplied)
E) Order dated 2nd February, 2011 passed by the Division Bench:
" Mr. Atul Kumar, learned counsel appearing for CBSE and
Ms. Maninder Acharya, learned counsel for the University have
submitted that a meeting was held between the CBSE and the
University and a consensus is likely to be arrived at, but further
meetings are required to be iron out some aspects. Its worth
noting Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Amicus Curiae, has given
certain suggestions to the learned counsel for the respondents.
The authorities shall keep the said suggestions in mind and
shall proceed accordingly. The decision, which is going to be
arrived at by the respondents, shall be filed before this Court
after giving a copy thereof to the learned Amicus Curiae. Both
the University and CBSE have shown a lackadaisical attitude.
We hope and trust they shall show promptness and alertness to
deal with the situation of the present nature as it involves fate of
the young students. Delay in these types of matters cannot be
countenanced and no excuse can be tolerated that the
authorities are busy in some other matters. The authorities yield
public power and have to be responsive. They have to devote
more time and not believe in the concept "duty for duty sake".
Sympathy, concern and sacrifice should be the moto of the said
authorities.
Matter be listed on 16th March, 2011."
F) Order dated 24th March, 2011 passed by the Division Bench:
"In pursuance of our earlier order dated 16.3.2011, Mr. R.K.
Sinha, Registrar, Delhi University, Dr. Veera Gupta, Secretary,
CBSE and Ms.Dharini S. Arun, Asst. Secretary, CBSE are
present. A memorandum has been filed stating, inter alia, that the
problem has been sorted out.
Mr.Jain, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the problem
remains as it is. The said controversy shall be adverted to on the
next date of hearing.
The personal presence of the authorities stands dispensed with
for the time being.
In the meantime, Mr.Jain, learned Amicus Curiae may give
further suggestions to the Registrar of the Delhi University and
the Secretary, CBSE so that they can take proper steps and see
that the controversy is put to rest from all spectrums and the
students do not suffer because of delay in re-verification of the
answer scripts. We hope and trust that the authorities shall
remain alive to the problems faced by the students and usher in a
sense of rational approach. Call on 20.4.2011."
(emphasis supplied)
G) Judgment dated 28th April, 2011 passed by the Division Bench:
"2. It is submitted by Mr. Atul Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for the CBSE that certain decisions have been taken. For the
sake of completeness, we reproduce the said decisions:
"The issues raised by the Amicus Curiae had
already been deliberated by CBSE in its
meeting held on 4.4.11. The following action
plan may be adopted:
i) The form for verification of Marks be uploaded
on the Website;
ii) Columns for collecting the following
information be added in the form in order to
segregate the applications in respect of those
candidates applying to University of Delhi and
Comptt./IOP candidates-
Result as declared by the Board
iii) The amount of fee be bifurcated for those
applying online and within five days of the
declaration of result and for those applying
between 6th to 21st day either online or offline
as under:
- 300/- per subject be charged for verification of
marks and the applications be received online
within five days from the date of declaration of
result. The result of verification be declared
within 15 days
- 200/- per subject be charged and the
application received either online or offline and
the results be also declared within 3-4 weeks.
- Verification result in respect of Comptt/IOP
candidates may be declared within 4-6 weeks
The fee structure for applying within 05 days of
declaration of result has been proposed to be
double of that as being charged from those
candidates applying between 6th to 21st day
which is the fee structure applicable as on date.
Also a Committee has already been constituted
to consider enhancement in the remuneration
and examination fee structure relating to
Classes X/XII Examinations. The issue for
increasing the fee for verification of marks will
also be discussed therein.
iv) The modes of receipt of the application and fees
may be as under-
(a) applications be received online with payment
(b) applications be received on-line with payment
through Demand Draft.
(c) applications be received offline in traditional
system.
(d) For future arrangement, tie up with Syndicate
Bank may be explored.
v) the process for verification be started on receipt
of the application in the office however, the result be
communicated only after realization of the requisite
fee.
vi) all applications received online or offline be
dealt with expeditiously on first come first disposal
basis;
It was further accepted that in those cases where the
increase in marks is more than five the Regional
officers may send the Answer sheets through
messenger (s), if needed for obtaining approval of
the Competent Authority to meet the time schedule."
3. At this juncture, Ms. Maninder Acharya, learned counsel
appearing for the University of Delhi after obtaining instructions
from Mr. M.A. Sikander, Deputy Registrar (Legal), Delhi
University, has submitted that the University shall admit all
students even if they only produce their marks after re-evaluation
till the last cut-off date, irrespective of availability of seat.
Learned counsel for the University has fairly stated that a
circular shall be issued to all the colleges within four weeks.
Needless to emphasize when the University issues the circular,
the same shall be binding on all affiliated and constituent
colleges. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of without any
order as to costs.
(emphasis supplied)
11. On the other hand, Mr. Saurabh Banerjee, learned counsel for
respondent-University stated that the petitioner though after re-evaluation
became eligible for admission as per the cut-off percentage required, yet he
was not considered as he had applied after expiry of the cut-off date
stipulated by the respondent-College. He pointed out that the respondent-
College had closed the admission for the said course on 7th July, 2014 for the
Academic Year 2014-15.
12. Mr. Banerjee further stated that respondent-University was already
following the order dated 28th April, 2011 passed by this Court in letter and
spirit and had a proper policy in place with respect to all admissions. He
stated that respondent-University and all the colleges under it always gave
proper benefit to all such students who furnished their re-evaluation marks
prior to the cut-off date announced by the college.
13. Mr. Amit Bansal, learned counsel for respondent-College stated that
petitioner approached the respondent-College only on 10/11th July, 2014 on
the basis of revaluated mark sheet. He contended that as the admission to
the said course was over on 7th July, 2014 and there was no vacant seat,
respondent-College expressed its inability to accede to petitioner's request.
14. Mr. Bansal further stated that as per the policy of respondent-
University approved by the Division Bench of this Court, colleges are
obliged to give admission on the basis of re-evaluation marks "only till the
last cut-off date". In support of this contention, he relied upon the
Notification dated 9th May, 2014 as well as Admission Brochure for four
years undergraduate programme 2014-15. The relevant portions of the
Notification dated 9th May, 2014 and the Admission Brochure are
reproduced hereinbelow:-
A) Notification dated 9th May, 2014.
"NOTIFICATION
The University of Delhi hereby notifies the following guidelines
of admission to be followed for admission to the Four Year
Undergraduate Programmes (FYUP) in the Regular Colleges for
the academic session 2014-2015:
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
10. After declaration of the cut off lists by the University, the
student will need to report to the college of his/her choice for
admission within the stipulated period. At this stage, the
candidate would be required to fill the college admission form
and the University enrolment form. The candidate would then
get his/her documents verified, submit the same to the college
and pay the admission fees."
B) Admission Brochure
"5. Rechecking/Revaluation
The colleges shall consider admission of the candidates whose
marks get increased in the process of rechecking/revaluation by
their respective boards within the prescribed period of
admission provided that such a candidate fulfills the other
eligibility condition laid down for admission."
15. Mr. Bansal submitted that there has to be same sanctity attached to the
time limit prescribed for admission otherwise it will be an open-ended
process and there will be no finality to the same. He contended that
exigencies like revised marks on re-evaluation is an exceptional incident for
which timelines set for admission should not be disturbed since such
hardships cannot be ruled out. He stated that there might be other students
as well, who for no fault of theirs, could not take admission in the
respondent-College within the stipulated period for reasons like late
declaration of results by their State Boards.
16. Mr. Bansal pointed out that in similar facts a Division Bench of
Punjab and Haryana High Court in Miss Mandeep Kang Vs. Punjab
University and Ors., (2000) 126 (3) PLR 153 has held that the last date for
considering eligibility of a student for admission is the cut-off date
stipulated for admission to the said course. The relevant portion of the
judgment relied upon by Mr. Bansal is reproduced hereinblow:-
"7. After noticing some judicial precedents, the Division Bench,
came to the conclusion that as the petitioner's revised result
was declared and conveyed to the Chairman. Counselling
Committee on 2-9-1998 and the counselling had taken place on
3-9-1998, a day later, the petitioner was entitled to take benefit
of revised result. In the judicial precedents that were relied it
was held that though admission to educational courses has to
be made on the basis of marks available at the time of filing of
the application form but there were certain exceptions to this
rule and one of these exceptions was that marks on re-
evaluation could be taken into consideration at later stage as
earlier marks had been awarded on a mistake committed by the
examining agency which required to be rectified.
8. After hearing the learned Counsel representing the petitioner
at some length; we are, however, of the view that the judgment
of the Division Bench in Amit Sharma v. Kurukshetra University
(supra) cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner in the facts
and circumstances of this case. The marked difference between
Amit Sharma v. Kurukshetra University (supra) and one in hand
is that whereas petitioner in Amit Sharma v. Kurukshetra
University (supra) was eligible for admission to the course
under contention, even on a date when result of the entrance
test was declared on the basis of the qualifying examination, in
the present case the result of the petitioner of the qualifying
examination having not been declared on the relevant date, he
was not eligible for admission at all. It may be reiterated that
even though candidates who had appeared in the qualifying
examination could take the entrance test but their admission to
the course under contention was dependent upon their having
passed the qualifying examination, Further, whereas in the case
in Amit Sharma v. Kurukshetra University (supra), counselling
had taken place a day after the result of the re-evaluation was
declared, the re-evaluation result in the case in hand was
declared after four months of the declaration of the entrance
test. The petitioner has not taken the Court into confidence in
giving the cut off date for admission which can well be
presumed to be before the re-evaluation result was declared.
Naturally, the process of admission has to come to an end at
some stage, failing which barring aside admission of few topper
other admissions shall always be uncertain. It is for that precise
reason that last date for admission is prescribed in prospectus
itself. As mentioned above, this Court has not been appraised of
that crucial date and this omission does not appear to be
intentional. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we, thus,
hold that the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this
Court in Amit Sharma v. Kurukshetra University (supra) cannot
be pressed into service for seeking the desired relied in the writ
petition.
9. This petition is, thus, dismissed in Petition dismissed."
17. However, Mr. R.K. Singh, learned counsel for respondent-CBSE
stated that whatever deficiencies in the evaluation of the answer sheet were
found, rectification was carried out promptly in accordance with its policy.
He stated that as the petitioner was not at fault, hence he should not be made
to suffer. The relevant portion of the counter affidavit of respondent-CBSE
is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"8. That despite all care and due diligence exercised by the
respondent-CBSE, there were certain difficulties experienced by
the students and Universities on account of the following:
Clash of schedule of declaration of CBSE results, time taken
in verification of marks/revaluation of answerscripts
(wherever the students sought them), revision of marks and
reissue of marksheets, etc. and the tight admission schedule
of Universities/institutes, particularly those running
professional courses.
There were complaints of students being denied admission
despite the students not being at fault or responsible for
delay in the process of verification/revaluation of
answerscripts.
These issues came up for consideration in W.P.(C) No.
4410/2010, which was treated as a PIL, and finally disposed of
by a Division bench of this Hon'ble Court vide judgment and
order dated 28-04-2011. In that case, on the directions of this
Hon'ble Court, the CBSE formulated a time-bound scheme for
seeking verification of marks, providing photocopies of
answersheets to students to enable them to challenge any
deficiency in markings/assessment and even getting them
revaluated by subject experts of the CBSE, so as to complete the
entire process before the Delhi University completed its process
of admission to UG courses. This was approved by this Hon'ble
Court after all concerned parties, including the Delhi
University, agreed to the proposed scheme. The Delhi
University gave an undertaking to ensure admission to students
who would be able to produce their "revaluated" mark-sheets
"till the last cut off date" whether any seat was available or not.
They also undertook to issue a circular to make good their
undertaking, and to obviate any difficulty coming in the way of
such students, who suffer on account of any delay in getting
their marks revaluated. Accordingly, from 2014 Examinations
onwards, the Board has introduced the following provisions
vide circular dated 29.05.2014:-
'Online' verification of marks,
providing photocopy of evaluated answer sheets and
request for "Re-evaluation" of answer books in selected
subjects.
All the above three processes are interlinked and are
made in such a manner that the above exercise is carried out in
a very tight time frame. This is to ensure that the students are
not put to any inconvenience and are given benefit of marks as
per the marking scheme.
9. That it is respectfully submitted that in the present case,
the respondent-CBSE acted promptly as per the provisions of
the above said circular, and provided the "revaluated marks" in
a time-bound manner. Whatever deficiencies in the evaluation
of the answersheets were found, rectification was immediately
carried out and a fresh revised marksheet was provided within
the time-frame stipulated in the above said circular dated 29-
05-2014. The petitioner is not at fault in any manner, and
hence should not be made to suffer."
(emphasis supplied)
18. In rejoinder, Mr. Sunil Goel, learned counsel for petitioner stated that
the Notification dated 9th May, 2014 as well as Admission Brochure for four
years undergraduate programme was not applicable as four years course had
been scrapped. He stated that even if the aforesaid Notification was
applicable, then also its paragraph 9 would apply inasmuch as it stated "The
college shall admit all candidates who have marks that meet the announced
cut-off criteria. No first-come-first-served policy is permitted." He
submitted that the cut-off date refers to cut-off date of the University for
admission purpose and not the cut-off date stipulated by the college.
Consequently, according to Mr. Goel, respondent-College could not take the
stand that petitioner did not come earlier.
19. Mr. Goel further submitted that the judgment of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Miss Mandeep Kang Vs. Punjab University and
Ors. (supra) was clearly distinguishable on facts as it did not deal with the
issue of cut-off marks for an undergraduate course. He pointed out that in
the said case, petitioner was a laggard and could not achieve even 45%
marks in B.A. examination which were the qualifying marks for admission
in LL.B. course. He stated that the Punjab and Haryana High Court in
paragraph 8 of the aforesaid judgment excluded the case of toppers by using
the words "barring aside admission of few toppers". Thus, according to
him, even the Punjab and Haryana High Court was of the view that the
exception can be made in case of toppers and they should not be made to
suffer.
20. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view
that no fault can be attributed to the petitioner as he had pursued his rights
and legal remedies without any delay.
21. Further, as the petitioner's marks have increased on re-evaluation, it is
apparent that there was a mistake on the part of respondent-CBSE in
checking the papers. This Court is of the view that had there been no delay
on the part of respondent-CBSE in releasing the result of re-evaluation,
whereby petitioner's marks in English subject increased from 87% to 95%
and his aggregate in best of four increased from 95.5% to 97.5%,
respondent-College would have admitted him in B.Com.(H) in normal
course as his marks are more than the cut-off.
22. This Court is also of the view that if the argument advanced by the
respondents is accepted, the entire exercise of re-evaluation would lose its
significance and meaning. After all, the re-evaluation exercise is not an
"exercise in futility". It has to have some significance and import. After all
a student applies for re-evaluation not just for 'statistical reasons', but to
take benefit of the increase in marks, if any.
23. In Asha Vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences and
Others, (2012) 7 SCC 389, the Supreme Court has held that even the strict
cut-off date stipulated for medical examination can be waived in certain
circumstances. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"30. There is no doubt that 30th September is the cut-off date.
The authorities cannot grant admission beyond the cut-off date
which is specifically postulated. But where no fault is
attributable to a candidate and she is denied admission for
arbitrary reasons, should the cut-off date be permitted to
operate as a bar to admission to such students particularly
when it would result in complete ruining of the professional
career of a meritorious candidate, is the question we have to
answer.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
32. Though there can be the rarest of rare cases or exceptional
circumstances where the courts may have to mould the relief
and make exception to the cut-off date of 30th September, but
in those cases, the Court must first return a finding that no
fault is attributable to the candidate, the candidate has
pursued her rights and legal remedies expeditiously without
any delay and that there is fault on the part of the authorities
and apparent breach of some rules, regulations and principles
in the process of selection and grant of admission. Where
denial of admission violates the right to equality and equal
treatment of the candidate, it would be completely unjust and
unfair to deny such exceptional relief to the candidate. (Refer
Arti Sapru v. State of J&K [(1981) 2 SCC 484 : 1981 SCC
(L&S) 398] , Chhavi Mehrotra v. DG, Health Services [(1994)
2 SCC 370] and Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P.
[(2001) 8 SCC 355] )
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
38.2.Question (b): 30th September is undoubtedly the last date
by which the admitted students should report to their
respective colleges without fail. In the normal course, the
admissions must close by holding of second counselling by
15th September of the relevant academic year (in terms of the
decision of this Court in Priya Gupta [(2012) 7 SCC 433] ).
Thereafter, only in very rare and exceptional cases of
unequivocal discrimination or arbitrariness or pressing
emergency, admission may be permissible but such power may
preferably be exercised by the courts. Further, it will be in the
rarest of rare cases and where the ends of justice would be
subverted or the process of law would stand frustrated that the
courts would exercise their extraordinary jurisdiction of
admitting candidates to the courses after the deadline of 30th
September of the current academic year. This, however, can
only be done if the conditions stated by this Court in Priya
Gupta [(2012) 7 SCC 433] and this judgment are found to be
unexceptionally satisfied and the reasons therefor are
recorded by the court of competent jurisdiction."
(emphasis supplied)
24. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that if the respondent-
CBSE increases the marks of the student upon re-evaluation, the petitioner
cannot be denied the logical consequence of the same, till the last cut-off
date for admitting the students by University has expired.
25. In fact, the Division Bench judgment in Ms. Jainidh Kaur (supra)
settles the controversy in petitioner's favour. In the said case the respondent-
University had undertaken to this Court that it shall admit all students even
if they produce their marks after re-evaluation till the last cut-off date,
irrespective of the availability of seats. The said statement was held to be
binding not only on respondent-University but also on its constituent and
affiliated colleges.
26. Also, upon a perusal of all the orders passed in Ms. Jainidh Kaur
(supra), this Court is of the view that the only difference between it and the
present case is that while in the said case the marks increased on rechecking,
in the present case marks increased on re-evaluation by CBSE.
27. The argument of the respondents that Ms. Jainidh Kaur (supra) refers
to 'cut-off' date of a particular course of a particular college and not 'cut-off'
date stipulated by the University, is not correct. This is because if the
student was to produce his revised mark sheet till the last cut-off date
stipulated by a particular college, then the college in any case would not
deny him admission and there would be no issue of availability of seats.
The expression 'cut-off' date has to be understood with reference to the issue
which was before the Division Bench, that means the student had been
denied admission by the college on the ground that admission was already
closed when he had approached it after increase of marks by CBSE. It is
pertinent to mention that the statement before the Division Bench was given
by the University and not by the college and hence the expression 'cut-off'
date has to refer to 'cut-off' date stipulated by the University.
28. This Court is of the opinion that the undertaking given by the
University and accepted by the Division Bench strikes a fine balance
inasmuch as it neither awaits for the result of re-checking and re-valuation
endlessly nor it restricts the same to the cut-off stipulated by the College. It
is to be noted that even CBSE supports the case of the petitioner.
Consequently, the respondents cannot be allowed to wriggle out of their own
undertaking given in Ms. Jainidh Kaur (supra).
29. Accordingly, present writ petition is allowed and the respondent-
College is directed to grant admission forthwith to petitioner in B.Com. (H)
course for Academic Year 2014-15 and for this purpose, if required, a
supernumerary seat is directed to be created by the University of Delhi. The
application also stands disposed of.
30. Further, keeping in view the fact that the overwhelming majority of
the students admitted to University of Delhi belong to CBSE Board, this
Court directs the Chairman, CBSE to have a meeting with the Vice
Chancellor of University of Delhi to ensure that from next academic year,
students' re-evaluation marks are taken into account while granting
admission to colleges of University of Delhi. For this purpose, either re-
evaluation process may be cut-short or cut-off date of colleges may be
postponed by a reasonable time. Let the said meeting be held within the
next two weeks and a decision be taken within eight weeks thereafter. The
minutes of meeting are directed to be placed on record within a period of
twelve weeks.
MANMOHAN, J
AUGUST 25, 2014
rn
