Delhi High Court
Manu Abhishek vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ... on 11 November, 2014
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6572/2014 & CM APPL. 15654/2014
MANU ABHISHEK ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sunita Bhardwaj, Advocate.
versus
GURU GOBIND SINGH
INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vipin Singh, Advocate.
Reserved on : 28th October, 2014
% Date of Decision : 11th November, 2014
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J:
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the cancellation/
withdrawal of Notification dated 28th August, 2014 which provided for a
special round of online counseling for ten courses offered by colleges under
respondent no. 1-University. Petitioner also seeks admission against the
vacant seats in BBA; B.A., LL.B; BBA, LL.B for session 2014-2015 in
respondent no.2-Institute of respondent No.1-University as per his first
option.
2. Respondent no. 1-University on 28th August, 2014 had issued a
Notification to provide a fresh round of counseling (supplementary
counseling) after the cut-off date i.e. 15th August, 2014. The same was
challenged before this Court by the Association of Self Financing
Institutions (Regd.) by way of a writ petition being W.P.(C) 5696/2014
primarily on the ground that the aforesaid Notification was in violation of
the time-schedule prescribed by the Supreme Court in Parshvanath
Charitable Trust & Others Vs. AICTE & Others, (2013) 3 SCC 385.
3. On the first date of hearing, this Court had issued notice but had not
granted any interim relief. Upon an appeal, i.e., LPA No. 576/2014 being
filed, the Division Bench directed that admission in courses/programmes
which were governed by the judgment of the Supreme Court shall be subject
to the outcome of the application/petition to be filed by respondent-
University before the Supreme Court seeking extension/variation of the time
schedule for admission to the Academic Year 2014-15.
4. Upon SLP (C) 24442/2014 being filed against the aforesaid Division
Bench's judgment, the Supreme Court on 8th September, 2014 passed the
following order:-
"Issue notice.
Ms. Asha Jain Madan, Advocate for the respondent, on caveat,
has entered appearance and accepts notice.
We have been apprised, in the course of hearing of this petition
for the purposes of admission, that the University has issued a
notification dated 28.08.2014, which is prior to the order
passed by the High Court. The said notification, as submitted
by Mr. Sibal, is likely to affect the schedule fixed by this Court
for AICTE and other statutory authorities like, NCTE, etc. It is
also urged at the Bar by virtue of this notification being worked
out, the students who have been admitted to a particular
course, may be dislodged or try their option for other courses
as a consequence of which the educational institutions would
likely to face a hazard. Be that as it may, Mr. Maninder Singh,
learned ASG shall explain the impact and effect of the
notification issued on 28.08.2014.
As an ad interim measure, it is directed there shall be stay of
operation of the order dated 3.09.2014 passed by the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 576/2014 and the
Notification referred to hereinabove.
List on 12.09.2014."
(emphasis supplied)
5. Consequently, as a result of the stay order, the ongoing counselling
being conducted by respondent-University in pursuance to the Notification
dated 28th August, 2014 came to a halt.
6. On 17th September, 2014, learned ASG appearing for respondent-
University stated before the Supreme Court that the University had taken a
decision to withdraw the Notification dated 28th August, 2014. The order
dated 17th September, 2014 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C)
24442/2014 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Heard Mr. Maninder Singh learned Additional Solicitor
General appearing for the University. It is submitted by the
learned Additional Solicitor General that the University has
taken a decision to withdraw the Notification dated 28 th August,
2014. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order passed by
the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and the Writ
Petition (C) No.5696/2014 pending in the High Court of Delhi,
is deemed to have been disposed of."
7. In view of the aforesaid statement, the Supreme Court set aside the
order passed in LPA No. 576/2014 by the Division Bench and the writ
petition being W.P.(C) 5696/2014 was directed to have been disposed of.
8. Thereafter, a batch of writ petitions with W.P.(C) 853/2014 being the
lead matter was filed before the Supreme Court seeking extension of time-
schedule to conduct another round of counseling as had been sought to be
conducted vide notification dated 28th August, 2014 to fill up over six
thousand vacant seats in respondent No. 1-University.
9. Ms Sunita Bhardwaj, learned counsel for petitioner in the instant writ
petition stated that the Petitioner, as per his Common Entrance Test (CET)
rank, was entitled to secure admission in his preferred course option viz.
BBA, LL.B (Hons) and if he was not allowed to change the course in which
he was admitted pursuant to earlier rounds of counseling, i.e from B.A.,
LLB to BBA, LL.B in respondent no.2-Institute, the seats in the said course
would go vacant. She submitted that seats in such courses cannot be allowed
to remain vacant as the same is contrary to public interest as well as
respondent No.1-University's Admission Brochure 2014-15. In this regard
she relied upon Paragraph 6(xii) of Chapter 1 of Part C of the Admission
Brochure 2014-15 which reads as under:-
"6. PROCEDURE FOR ADMISSION THROUGH SECOND
COUNSELLING (for offline counselling) :-
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
(xii) If any vacancy(ies) arises after second counselling due to
any reason, the same shall be filled up as per the
directives/instructions of the Hon'ble Court(s)/decision of the
University."
10. Ms. Bhardwaj also referred to Note 3 to Chapter 3 of Part C of the
Admission Brochure 2014-15 to state that seats in petitioner's preferred
option, i.e., BBA, LL.B. shall go vacant as there is no management quota in
respondent No. 2-College. The said Note 3 reads as under:-
"Note :
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
3. In case of Self Financing Colleges/Institutes, Sanctioned
Intake includes 10% Management Quota seats (as per the CET
Code). However, in case of University Schools of Study and Govt.
Institutes there will be no Management Quota."
11. In support of her submissions, Ms. Bhardwaj relied upon Supreme
Court's judgment in "State of H.P. Vs. Himachal Institute of Engineering
& Technology, (1998) 8 SCC 504 wherein it has been held as under:-
".......We had extracted the relevant paragraph from the
decision of Unni Krishnan case which clearly stated that any
vacancies still remaining after the cut-off date can be filled by
the management. In the instant case also, there have been
vacancies which have remained unfilled after the cut-off date
and it would, therefore, be open to the management to fill them
up in the manner they consider appropriate. The SLP will stand
disposed of in the light of and as per directions in Unni
Krishnan case."
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:-
"19. Thereafter the present batch of writ petitions havebeen
filed fundamentally for extension of time schedule which would
logically give rise to conducting of another round of
counselling. It is contended in the writ petition that more than
six thousand seats are vacant and there are thousand of
students who are qualified in CET and there is no justification
not to fill up the said seats. It is asseverated that due to no fault
of the educational institutions which are self-financed are likely
to suffer enormous financial loss and the students who have
cleared the entrance test and are meritorious would lose one
year. Be it stated, the notification issued by the university
covered the following courses:-
"(a) B.Tech/M. Tech. (Dual Degree)/B.Tech. CET
Code 31;
(b) BBA,CET Code 125
(c) BCA CET Code 114
(d) B. Com., CET Code 146
(e) B.Ed. CET Code 122
(f) BJMC, CET Code 126
(g) BA, LLB/BBA, LL.B. CET Code 121
(h) MBA, CET Code 191
(i) MCA, CET Code 105
(j) LE to B.Tech. CET Code 128 and 129"
20. It is not disputed that courses covered under (a), (h), (i) and
(j) are covered by AICTE Regulations. B.Ed. CET Code 122 is
covered under the NCTE Act and Regulations framed
thereunder. Courses covered under, (b), (c), (d), (f) and (g) are
directly governed by the university statutes and regulations. In
the present case we are not dealing with the controversy
pertaining to the cases under the NCTE Act, 1993.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
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)
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.
MANMOHAN, J
NOVEMBER 11, 2014
rn/sk
