Sahil Sachdeva vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 6722 Del

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

+      W.P.(C) 7374/2014 & CM APPL. 17237/2014

       SAHIL SACHDEVA                        ....Petitioner
                    Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate with
                             Mr. Ayush Arora and Ms. Aastha
                             Chopra, Advoates.

                    versus

       GURU GOBIND SINGH
       INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY ORS.              ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar, Advocate with
                            Mr. Sradhananda Mohapatra and
                            Mr. Vipin Singh, Advocates for
                            GGSIPU.

                                Reserved on      : 20th November, 2014
%                               Date of Decision : 12th December, 2014


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

                             JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J:

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the respondent No.1- University's action of not allotting a seat to the petitioner in his preferred course option viz. BBA LL.B. in the supplementary counselling conducted by the respondent No.1-University on 20th October, 2014 pursuant to the respondent No.1-University's Notification dated 16th October, 2014.

Petitioner has also sought a direction to respondent No.1-University to allot a seat to the petitioner in BBA LL.B. Course in respondent No.2-Institute for the academic session 2014-2015.

2. Mr. R.K. Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner had not been allotted any seat in the first, second and third rounds of counselling, but had secured admission in BA LL.B. course under management quota. Consequently, he contended that in accordance with the Notification dated 16th October, 2014, the petitioner was fully entitled for consideration in the supplementary counselling.

3. In support of his submission, he relied upon Clause 3A(a) of Notification dated 16th October, 2014, which is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"3. The following CET qualified eligible (as per admission criterion) candidates are eligible for participation in the supplementary counselling:

A. Those candidates who participated in Special Round of Counselling and paid Rs.10,000/- and

(a) Who had not been allotted any seat in first, second and third round of online counselling."

4. Mr. Saini stated that the case of the petitioner is only for change of course from BA LL.B. to BBA LL.B. and not a case for change of any Institute/college for which cancellation/refund of fees is required. In fact, the fee structure of the course is also the same. He also stated that after petitioner's admission in BA LL.B. course, he was assured that he would be given admission in BBA LL.B. course in the supplementary counselling therefore, petitioner had been attending classes in BBA LL.B. course since

its commencement i.e. 19th August, 2014, till date. Mr. Saini further stated that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent No.2-College as a number of seats in BBA LL.B. course are vacant.

5. When a judgment of this Court in Manu Abhishek vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Anr., W.P.(C) 6572/2014, was brought to Mr. Saini's notice, wherein this Court had dealt with a similar situation, Mr. Saini, submitted that the fundamental difference between the two cases was that the petitioner in the present case had not been given admission in first three rounds of counselling, but had been allocated a seat under the management quota after paying some consideration. He stated that no counselling had been held for management quota.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Mukul Talwar, learned counsel for GGSIPU, who appeared on advance notice, contended that the management quota is not a largesse. He stated that the management quota was also filled up according to merit, although not on the basis of the marks secured in the entrance test, but in accordance with Class 12th marks. He stated that this was also a kind of counselling.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the pertinent issue which arises for consideration in the present petition is the interpretation of the Supreme Court's directions contained in para 29(b) of the judgment in Varun Saini & Ors. vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University in W.P.(C) 853/2014. The said direction is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"29. To sum up:

(a) Time is extended for carrying out the on-line counselling till 21st of October, 2014.

(b) The students who have already taken admission in colleges shall not be permitted to participate in the supplementary counseling, and the students who are attending classes in any institution without the counselling shall be deemed not to have been admitted and, therefore, they will be eligible to participate in the on line counseling.................."

(emphasis supplied)

8. This Court in a similar case of Manu Abhishek (supra) has, after taking into consideration the aforesaid direction of the Supreme Court similarly held as under:-

"12. In the opinion of this Court, the issue of filling up of vacant seats in courses including BBA, LL.B offered by colleges under respondent no.1-University for Academic Session 2014- 15 as sought by the petitioner is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court on 16th October, 2014 in W.P.(C) 853/2014 decided to extend the cut-off date to fill up vacant seats in respondent No. 1-University for the Academic Session 2014-15 by directing the respondent No. 1-University to conduct counseling in a specific manner. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein below.............

xxx xxx xxx

13. In view of the aforesaid categorical directions issued by the Supreme Court in W.P.(C) 853/2014, the petitioner who has already been granted admission in B.A., LL.B. of respondent no. 2-Institute pursuant to earlier rounds of counseling, is not entitled to participate in the Supplementary Counseling for admission to BBA, LL.B and the impugned action of the

respondent-University is in conformity with the directions of the Supreme Court.

14. Consequently, present writ petition and application are dismissed."

(emphasis supplied)

9. Though Mr. Saini relied upon the latter part of the direction contained in para 29(b) of the Supreme Court's direction, i.e., "students who are attending classes in any institution without the counselling shall be deemed not to have been admitted and, therefore, they will be eligible to participate in the on line counselling", yet this Court is of the view that this portion of the direction only means that students who had neither been issued any enrolment number nor granted admission shall be entitled to seek admission.

The intent of the Supreme Court's order was to fill the vacant seats and not to disturb the existing position or the students already admitted.

10. Since the petitioner is already an admitted student, this Court is of the view that he is not entitled to participate in supplementary counselling for admission in BBA LL.B. and the impugned action of the respondent- University is in accordance with the Supreme Court's directions in Varun Saini (supra). Consequently, the present writ petition and application are dismissed, but with no orders as to costs.

MANMOHAN, J

DECEMBER 12, 2014 js/rn