Delhi High Court
Ms. Yusra Hashmi vs University Of Delhi & Ors. on 11 November, 2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 11th November, 2014
+ LPA No.735/2014
MS. YUSRA HASHMI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini with Mr. S.A. Hashmi,
Mr. Salman Hashmi & Mr. Zeeshan
Hashmi, Advs.
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Y. Phazang, Adv. for Mr. M.J.S.
Rupal, Advs. for R-1.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
1. This intra-court appeal impugns the judgment dated 13th October, 2014
of the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.6570/2014
preferred by the appellant.
2. We have heard the counsel for the appellant in detail on the aspect of
entertaining this appeal.
3. The writ petition from which this appeal arises was filed impugning the
order dated 11th September, 2014 of the Vice Chancellor of the respondent
No.1 University of Delhi rejecting the representation of the appellant / writ
petitioner for condoning the delay of one day in seeking admission to the MA
(History) course in South Campus for the academic year 2014-15 and seeking a
direction to the respondent No.1 University to so admit the appellant.
3. The factual position is as under:-
(i) The appellant / writ petitioner had appeared in the test held by the
respondent No.1 University for admission to the said course and
secured 41 marks therein. The name of the appellant did not
figure in the first, second, third and fourth admission lists
published by the respondent No.1 University. The respondent No.1
University ultimately on 28th August, 2014 published the fifth
admission list and in which the name of the appellant figured at
serial No.1. According to the appellant, the said fifth admission
list was uploaded on the website of the University only on 29 th
August, 2014 and gave only two days time i.e. of 29 th & 30th
August, 2014 to the candidates whose name figured therein to seek
admission and complete the formalities therefor. The appellant
admittedly did not approach the University, neither on 29th August,
2014 nor on 30th August, 2014. 31st August, 2014 was a Sunday.
The appellant approached the University on 1st September, 2014
when she was refused admission on the ground that the last date
fixed for admission was 31st August, 2014. The appellant made a
representation dated 1st September, 2014 supra to the Vice
Chancellor of the University seeking condonation of one days
delay in seeking admission.
(ii) The appellant also filed W.P.(C) No.5802/2014 in this Court
which came up for hearing on 3rd September, 2014. When during
the hearing thereof the appellant confined the relief therein to a
direction to the Vice Chancellor of the respondent No.1 University
to decide the representation filed by the petitioner on 1st
September, 2014. Accordingly, the said writ petition was disposed
of with a direction to the Vice Chancellor to decide the said
representation within one week. The Vice Chancellor has vide
order dated 11th September, 2014 (supra) rejected the said
representation, for the reasons; i) that as per Clause 3 of Ordinance
II of the University, all provisional admissions to postgraduate
courses shall be finalized by the Standing Committees concerned
not later than 31st August of the year in which admissions are
sought and the provisional admissions not finalized by the said
date shall automatically be annulled; ii) that vide Notification
dated 6th August, 2014 also, all faculties / departments /
institutions were notified that postgraduate admissions are to be
finalized by 31st August, 2014 and no admission will be allowed
beyond the said date under any circumstances; and, iii) thus the
representation of the appellant for one day‟s extension in the last
date could not be acceded to.
4. It was inter alia the contention of the appellant before the learned Single
Judge that the respondent no.1 University while publishing the first to the
fourth admission lists had each time given three working days time for seeking
admission and had thus discriminated in prescribing only two days time while
publishing the fifth list. The learned Single Judge rejected the said contention
for the reason that students applying under the earlier lists were much more in
number than those applying under the fifth list and thus the two situations were
not at par for a case of discrimination to be made out.
5. Another argument raised before the learned single Judge was that since
31st August, 2014 was a Sunday, by virtue of Section 10 of the General Clauses
Act, 1897, the last date for admission was in fact 1 st September, 2014 and on
which date, the appellant had sought admission but was wrongly refused. The
learned Single Judge rejected the said contention also holding that in the fifth
list, the last date prescribed for seeking admission was 30th August, 2014 which
was a working day and merely because the University had stipulated 31 st
August, 2014 as the last date, did not compel the respondent University to
continue the admissions till then.
6. The learned Single Judge also relied on Asha Vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma
University of Health Sciences (2012) 7 SCC 389 holding that authorities
cannot grant admission beyond the cut-off date which is specifically postulated,
except where no fault is attributable to a candidate and the candidate is denied
admission for arbitrary reasons and held that in the present case no fault could
be attributed to the respondent No.1 University and the fault indeed was of the
appellant in not approaching the University on 29th and 30th August, 2014.
7. The counsel for the appellant has raised the same arguments before us
also but we do not find any error in the reasoning given by the learned Single
Judge in dealing with the same.
8. The counsel for the appellant has also contended that the appellant, upon
telephonically approaching the University on 29th August, 2014 was informed
that no fifth list will be posted and that admissions had been closed and thus
could not approach the University.
9. We however do not find the said argument to be borne out from the
pleadings in the memorandum of appeal or the writ petition. The appellant in
paragraph 10 of the writ petition has pleaded that the fifth list though dated 28 th
August, 2014 was uploaded on the website of the respondent University only
on 29th August, 2014 and in this list the name of the appellant was at serial
No.1. The appellant thereafter in paragraph 11 of the writ petition has pleaded
that she was unwell on 29th August, 2014 and therefore made the phone call
aforesaid. The appellant in paragraph 12 of the writ petition has pleaded, "That
however as stated above, the fifth admission list was posted on the Delhi
University website on 29.08.2014 ......." It is thus not the plea of the appellant
that she did not know of the fifth list dated 28th August, 2014, even if uploaded
on the website on 29th August, 2014 or that inspite of telephonic denial of the
respondent University on 29th August, 2014, how she learnt of the same, for her
to approach the respondent University on 1st September, 2014. In fact the
appellant in her representation dated 1st September, 2014 also did not state that
she was so misguided by the tele-conversation and rather stated that she could
not apply on 29th & 30th August, 2014 because of illness.
10. The said argument is thus clearly an afterthought and false. In fact in the
writ petition there is no explanation, for the appellant not approaching the
University on 30th August, 2014 and the reason given is only of illness on 29 th
August, 2014. The appellant is not entitled to any discretionary remedy as a
remedy under Article 226 is, for the reason of taking a false plea which is not
borne out from the representation dated 1 st September, 2014, being the first
missive from the appellant on her own.
11. We may also add that we entertain doubts as to the applicability of the
Section 10 of the General Clauses Act. The same prescribes for the next
working day to become the last day in the event of the last day prescribed being
a holiday, where any act or proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or
taken „in any Court or office‟ on a certain day or within a period prescribed, by
any central Act or Regulation. Ordinance II of the respondent University in
Clause 3 thereof provides that admissions shall be finalized not later than such
last date as may be prescribed by the Academic Council from time to time. The
last date of 31st August, 2014 thus appears to have been prescribed by the
Academic Council of the respondent No.1 University and not by the Delhi
University Act, 1922 or any Regulation. Also, Section 10 is applicable only
where the time prescribed is for doing a thing in „any court or office‟. We
doubt that the time prescribed for seeking admission in the University can be
said to be for doing anything in any office. We have not found any decided
case on the subject, though mention may be made of Mohd. Ayub Vs. State of
U.P. (2009) 17 SCC 70 applying the principle contained in Section 10 to hold
that the formalities for recruitment were completed within time and to HUDA
Vs. Dr. Babeswar Kanhar (2005) 1 SCC 191 where the principle was held to
be applicable to the date prescribed for submitting an application for allotment
of a plot of land, inspite of Section 10 being held to be not applicable.
12. The counsel for the appellant had also contended that since there is a
vacant seat, the appellant be admitted thereto.
13. The aforesaid is also no longer res integra. We have recently in Rajeev
Kumar Vs. Union of India MANU/DE/1752/2014 reiterated that at the cost of
filling up of the seats, admission process cannot be allowed to be unended.
Though the delay in the present case is of one day only but if we were to
condone the same, we would have no reason to deny in any other case,
admission to a candidate delayed by two days and so on.
14. There is thus no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
NOVEMBER 11, 2014/„gsr‟..
