Delhi High Court
Pankaj Kumar Tiwari & Ors vs Vice Chancellor, University Of ... on 2 May, 2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 2nd May, 2014
+ LPA 343/2014
PANKAJ KUMAR TIWARI & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Appellants in person.
Versus
VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY
OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. M.J.S. Rupal, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 23rd April, 2014 of the
learned Single Judge of this Court, declining the interim relief sought by the
three appellants in W.P.(C) No.495/2014 preferred by the three appellants
and listing the writ petition for hearing on 30th July, 2014.
2. The appellants have filed the writ petition from which this appeal
arises, impugning the denial by the respondents to the three appellants of
admission to the LL.B. course in the academic year 2013-14. The appellants
sought the interim relief of directing the respondents to reserve three seats in
the LL.B. course commencing in the academic year 2014-15, to enable the
appellants to be admitted thereto, if succeed in their petition, without
undergoing the admission test for the year 2014-15. Reliance in this regard
was placed on Parmender Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 177.
3. The learned Single Judge however in the impugned order declined the
interim relief, merely observing that since the Court till then had not reached
the conclusion that the appellants had been unjustly and illegally denied
admission, no such relief could be granted.
4. We, at the outset, enquired from the appellants as to why the
appellants cannot appear in the entrance test for the academic year 2014-15
scheduled to be held in June, 2014. The appellants state that since according
to them, they were successful in the entrance test held for the year 2013-14
and were entitled to be admitted and have been wrongly denied admission,
they, if succeed in their petition, cannot be left without any relief of
admission as sought in the writ petition, particularly when they have already
suffered for one year.
5. Reliance is again placed on Parmender Kumar (supra).
6. We have invited the attention of the appellants to the judgments of
this court in Dr. Mundhe Kailas Maharudra Vs. AIIMS, New Delhi
MANU/DE/3113/2010 and of the Division Bench of this Court in Rajat
Goel Vs. Ministry of Human Resource and Development (Govt of India)
MANU/DE/7235/2011, SLP(C) No.9544/2012 preferred where against was
dismissed by the Supreme Court on 2nd April, 2012, where it has been held;
i) that the reward of success in one competition cannot be given in
another competition in which the petitioner has not participated
/ competed;
ii) that it is not a matter between petitioner and educational
institution only; the others who participate in the competition
are also concerned; such others cannot be made to suffer for the
folly even if any of the educational institution in not admitting
the petitioner in the year in which he was eligible; such relief if
granted will be detrimental to the admission seekers in the test
for the subsequent year;
iii) that the medallion won in one race, if not awarded for whatever
reasons, cannot be awarded in another race without
participating in the same;
iv) granting admission in the next academic session will
necessarily be at the cost of the aspirants for admission in the
next academic session and the seats available to them for
admission would stand reduced; the Court cannot issue such an
order prejudicial to the person/s who are not even before the
Court;
v) that a student cannot be declared successful in an admission test
without appearing and participating in the same and the same if
allowed would be against all cannons of justice, equity and
conscience.
Reliance, besides on a catena of judgments, was placed on Rajiv
Kapoor Vs. State of Haryana (2000) 9 SCC 115 and certain other
judgments of the Supreme Court, where such directions had been issued,
were found to be consent orders.
7. The appellants however again referred to Parmender Kumar (supra)
and contend that that being the judgment of the Supreme Court, will prevail
over the judgments of this Court.
8. We find the Supreme Court in Parmender Kumar (supra) to have
issued such a direction, without any discussion this respect and merely on
the basis of such a direction having been issued in Vinay Rampal (Dr.) Vs.
State of Jammu & Kashmir (1984) 1 SCC 160. We have perused Vinay
Rampal (Dr.) (supra) also and do not find the Supreme Court therein also to
have given any reason or to have debated whether such a direction can be
issued or not.
9. Per contra, the judgments of this Court were directly concerned with
and debated the subject issue. We are thus of the opinion that the issue
cannot be said to have been 'decided' in Parmender Kumar (supra).
10. Not only so, the counsel for the respondents appearing on advance
notice has also invited our attention to Faiza Choudhary Vs. State of
Jammu & Kashmir (2012) 10 SCC 149 where also the Supreme Court has
unequivocally held that the carry-forward principle is inapplicable and the
vacant reserved seats for previous years cannot be filled up by a candidate of
previous year's merit list / waiting list.
11. We therefore do not find the appellants to be entitled to the interim
relief claimed.
12. There is no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
MAY 02, 2014
'gsr'
