Siddarth Singh vs The Vice Chancellor, Delhi ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 5327 Del

          *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                  Date of decision: 29th October, 2014

+                               LPA No.679/2014

       SIDDARTH SINGH                                  .... Appellant
                    Through:          Mr. R.K. Saini & Mr. Virendra
                                      Rawat, Advs.

                                   Versus

    THE VICE CHANCELLOR, DELHI
    UNIVERSITY & ORS.                          ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. Saurabh Banerjee with Mr. Sumit
                           Nagpal, Advs. for R-1/ University of
                           Delhi.
                           Mr. Amit Khemka with Mr. Rishi
                           Sehgal, Advs. for R-4.
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 10th September,

2014 of the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of W.P.(C)

No.4794/2014 preferred by the appellant / writ petitioner.

2. Notice of this appeal was issued. Considering the nature of the relief

claimed, we, with consent, heard the counsels for the appellant / writ

petitioner, respondents no.1 to 3 Delhi University and the counsel for the

respondent no.4 Maharaja Agarsen College affiliated to the Delhi

University, finally, at the after notice stage itself and reserved judgment.

3. The writ petition from which this appeal arises was filed seeking

mandamus directing the respondents to grant admission to the appellant /

writ petitioner in the academic year 2014-15 in the B.Com. (Hons.)

programme / course under the Sports Quota, pleading:

(i) that the appellant / writ petitioner in the year 2014 passed his

Class-XII examination, held by the Indian Certificate of

Secondary Education (ICSE) Board as a student of Sherwood

College, Nainital in Commerce stream, securing 86% marks in

Commerce, 86% marks in Economics, 83% marks in

Accountancy as well as in the subjects of English and Hindi;

(ii) that the appellant / writ petitioner had also played several sports

including Athletics and Basketball for the school as well as at

the District, State and National Level;

(iii) that the appellant / writ petitioner applied for admission in the

respondent University by filling up the prescribed Common

Admission Form; the appellant / writ petitioner also applied

under Sports Quota and appeared for trials etc. and was selected

for B.Com. (Hons.) course under Sports Quota in the

respondent no.4 College which is nearby to the appellant / writ

petitioner‟s house;

(iv) however when the appellant / writ petitioner went to deposit the

fee along with original testimonials, he was refused admission

for the reason that he did not have Mathematics in Class XII;

(v) that other Colleges of / affiliated to the respondents no.1 to 3

Delhi University including Shri Ram College of Commerce,

Ramjas College, Hans Raj College gave admission in B.Com.

(Hons.) without mathematics in Class XII;

(vi) thus the denial of admission by the respondent no.4 College to

the appellant / writ petitioner was totally discriminatory;

(vii) that the appellant / writ petition did not apply for being selected

in other colleges under the Sports Quota where the other

candidates who had secured 65% marks in Class XII got

admission in Sports Quota;

(viii) that as per the admission brochure of the Delhi University for

the year 2014, there was no condition stipulated with regard to

Mathematics as one of the subjects required for admission in

B.Com. (Hons.).

4. The writ petition was entertained and a counter affidavit was filed on

behalf of the respondents no.1 to 3 Delhi University as well as on behalf of

the respondent no.4 College.

5. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the

writ petition, finding / observing / holding:

(a) that the appellant / writ petitioner could not rely on the

admission brochure published by the respondent Delhi

University for the year 2014-15 as the same was for admission

to the Four Year Undergraduate Programme (FYUP) but which

programme, as per the Statement dated 27th June, 2014 of the

Vice Chancellor of the Delhi University and the Resolution

dated 28th June, 2014 of the Academic & Executive Council of

the University and the Notification dated 30 th June, 2014, was

rolled back;

(b) that the FYUP was scrapped prior to any admission having

been made by any college;

(c) that the Schedule of Admission for the academic year 2014-15

as contained in the admission brochure relied upon by the

appellant / writ petitioner was replaced by another Schedule

dated 30th June, 2014;

(d) the contention of the appellant / writ petitioner that the Rules

for admission had been retrospectively changed was thus

misconceived;

(e) In fact, the Delhi University and all its colleges admitted

students in accordance with the procedure and criteria as

applicable to the year 2012-13 and not in accordance with the

FYUP admission brochure for the year 2014-15;

(f) that while Delhi University prescribes the basic eligibility

criteria, each college of the University is free to prescribe its

own additional eligibility criteria; the same is in consonance

with the principle of autonomy of private colleges in higher

education, enunciated in T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs. State of

Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481;

(g) that in the Bulletin of Information for Admission to

undergraduate courses published for the year 2012-13 and

which had been made applicable for admission to the year

2014-15, Mathematics was shown as the additional eligibility

criteria in the respondent no.4 College for the B.Com. (Hons.)

programme / course.

6. Notwithstanding the well reasoned judgment as aforesaid of the

learned Single Judge, we issued notice, being prima facie of the view that

the appellant / writ petitioner, after the FYUP programme under which the

appellant / writ petitioner had applied for admission and as per which

programme the appellant / writ petitioner for admission to the respondent

no.4 College in the B.Com. (Hons.) course was not required to have

Mathematics was rolled back, and the admission criteria as applicable for

admissions to the year 2012-13 and as per which the appellant / writ

petitioner for such admission was required to have Mathematics in Class XII

was made applicable, the appellant / writ petitioner did not have the

opportunity to apply for admission to any other college and which aspect

had not been considered or perhaps not even argued before the learned

Single Judge.

7. We have as such heard the counsels on the said aspect only.

8. The undisputed position which emerges is as under:

A. As per the admission brochure published by the Delhi

University for the year 2014-15, the aspirants were required to

fill up the Common Admission Form and register themselves

between 2nd June, 2014 to 16th June, 2014; first admission list

was to be notified by the Colleges on 24th June, 2014;

admission and payment of fees in pursuance thereto was to be

done between 24th to 26th June, 2014; the second admission list

was to be notified on 27th June, 2014 and admission and

payment of fee pursuant thereto were to be made between 27th

to 30th June, 2014; the third admission list was to be notified on

1st July, 2014 and admissions pursuant thereto to be made

between 1st & 3rd July, 2014. Though the said Schedule

provides for Notification till the 10th admission list on 21st July,

2014 and admissions coupled with payment of fees in pursuant

thereto between 21st to 22nd July, 2014 but need for giving the

said dates does not arise in the facts of the present case.

B. As per the said admission brochure, the appellant / writ

petitioner was eligible for admission to the B.Com. (Hons.)

course in the respondent No.4 College, even without having

Mathematics as a subject in Class XII.

C. The appellant participated in the trials held by the respondent

no.4 College for admission under the Sports Quota and on the

basis of his performance, was shortlisted for admission subject

to his fulfilling the admission criteria and further subject to

verification of his testimonials.

D. Due to change in policy and as per the directions of the

University Grants Commission, the Delhi University scrapped

the FYUP programme introduced with effect from the year

2013-14 and reverted to the earlier three year course /

programme.

E. The Vice Chancellor of the respondent University on 27 th June,

2014 issued a Statement to the said effect, further clarifying that

the admission process for the year 2014-15 shall be conducted

under the Scheme as in force for the year 2012-13.

F. The Academic Council of the respondent University also vide

Resolution dated 28th June, 2014 re-affirmed the aforesaid

Statement of the Vice Chancellor.

G. The respondent University on 30th June, 2014 issued a

Notification prescribing guidelines for admission for the

academic session 2014-15 inter alia additionally providing that

the first cut-off list will be declared on 1st July, 2014 and

admission will start the same day and that colleges will send the

cut-off list to the office of the Registrar one day in advance.

H. The respondent University before the learned Single Judge

clarified that though as per the original schedule, the first

admission list was to be notified on 24th June, 2014 and

admissions pursuant thereto were to begin from same day and

till 26th June, 2014, but no admissions were made till 27th June,

2014.

9. The respondent no.4 College in its counter affidavit filed before the

learned Single Judge has inter alia stated that after the aforesaid statement of

the Vice Chancellor and Resolution of the Academic Council of the

University, the students seeking admission in the respondent no.4 College

were required to fill up the college admission form and along with the said

admission form provided the bulletin of information and which clearly

mentioned the requirement of having Mathematics at the Higher Secondary

level for admission to the B.Com. (Hons.) course. It was thus submitted that

the appellant / writ petitioner was well aware of the said requirement and

could not, without fulfilling the same, have expected admission in the

respondent no.4 College and the respondent no.4 College cannot be directed

to admit the appellant / writ petitioner who does not fulfill the prescribed

admission criteria. The counsel for the respondent no.4 College in this

regard also invites attention to the Notification dated 30 th June, 2014 of the

respondent University, Clauses 7 & 8 whereof are as under:

"7. All the candidates already registered online / offline through the University for the current academic year will now be eligible for admission to all courses wherever they meet the eligibility criteria.

8. All candidates who have not already registered will be required to fill the University registration form on the payment of 100 (General / OBC) / 50 (SC/ST/PwD), alongwith the college Admission form in case she/he meets the cut-off and qualifies for admission. This registration made in a college will be valid in case the candidate take admission in another college / course in the subsequent cut-off lists."

On the basis thereof, it is argued that the appellant, after the aforesaid

change, instead of seeking admission in the respondent no.4 College and for

which he was not eligible, should have sought admission in other colleges

where he was eligible for admission.

10. Per contra, the counsel for the appellant / writ petitioner has argued

that the trials for admission under the Sports Quota were held in different

colleges of the respondent University till 24th June, 2014 and the appellant /

writ petitioner being interested in admission only in the respondent no.4

College, which is closest to his house and where his elder brother was also

studying, did not participate in sports trials in other college viz. Shri Ram

College of Commerce, Ramjas College, Hans Raj College even though

perceived to be better than the respondent no.4 College and there was thus

no question of the appellant / writ petitioner, after 30th June, 2014, applying

for admission to any other college. Attention in this regard is also invited to

the rejoinder filed before the learned Single Judge to the counter affidavit of

the respondent no.4 College, specifically denying that any Bulletin of

Information as pleaded was supplied along with admission form and

pleading that there was no time or opportunity for the appellant / writ

petitioner to apply for admission under the new Scheme to any other college

for admission in which he was eligible.

11. Inspite of our repeated asking, neither the counsel for the respondent

University nor the counsel for the respondent no.4 College were able to

satisfy us as to where was the time for the appellant / writ petitioner to, after

the entire admission process was revised, seek admission to any other

college for admission to which he was eligible under the Sports Quota.

12. As aforesaid, the process of filling up of the forms for admission

under the original time schedule was till 16th June, 2014. The contention of

the counsel for the appellant / writ petitioner, that the trials for admission in

Sports Quota under the FYUP and as per the original schedule were held till

24th June, 2014, has not been rebutted by the counsel of the respondent

University or the counsel for the respondent no.4 College. The admission

process was in limbo from 27th June, 2014 till 30th June, 2014. As per the

Notification dated 30th June, 2014, the colleges were to announce the first

cut-off list on the very next day i.e. 1st July, 2014 and in fact the colleges

were required to send the cut-off list to the University by 1600 hours on 30th

June, 2014 itself. The candidates, who had already registered with the

University as per Clause 7 (supra) of the Notification dated 30th June, 2014

were eligible for admission to the courses in the colleges for admission

whereto they met the eligibility criteria. The appellant / writ petitioner had

as aforesaid, registered for admission. Only the candidates who had not

registered were as per Clause 8 (supra) of the Notification dated 30 th June,

2014 were given an opportunity to register and which registration could of

course be on 30th June, 2014 or 1st July, 2014 only. There was thus no time

for the appellant / writ petitioner to, after the revised schedule for admission

was notified on 30th June, 2014, apply for admission in Sports Quota in any

other College, even if it were to be believed that the appellant / writ

petitioner on 30th June, 2014 or on 1st July, 2014 was made aware of the

additional eligibility criteria for admission in respondent No.4 College and

which he did not fulfill.

13. We also entertain serious doubts as to the availability with the

respondent no.4 College of the admission brochures for the year 2012-13 in

sufficient quantity on 30th June, 2014 and 1st July, 2014 for being distributed

to all candidates asking for admission forms. We thus tend to believe the

version of the appellant / writ petitioner that the appellant / writ petitioner

had no knowledge of the additional criteria laid down by the respondent no.4

College of having Mathematics as a subject in Higher Secondary for

admission to B.Com. (Hons.) course.

14. However, even if it were to be believed that the appellant / writ

petitioner had such knowledge or is to be deemed to have such knowledge

on 30th June, 2014, the fact still remain that the appellant / writ petitioner, on

the basis of and relying upon the admission criteria published for the year

2014-2015 having not participated in the sports trials in the other colleges

and for admission to which he was eligible and having not been given such

an opportunity, after the admission criteria was changed, cannot be allowed

to suffer.

15. It thus clearly is a case where owing to the mess which is the creation

of the respondent University itself, in inspite of clear signals of change in

policy, first persisting with the FYUP and at the last minute relenting. The

appellant / writ petitioner has been left without admission to any college

inspite of securing high marks making him eligible for admission in the

Sports Quota in colleges of the respondent University perceived to be the

best or in any other college. The appellant / writ petition thus faces the stark

reality of wasting one year of his academic life.

16. We find a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in

Mamta Bansal Vs. State of Punjab MANU/PH/2376/2001, in a case where

mid-term changes in the admission policy were made, to have held that the same

cannot be allowed to adversely affect the interest of candidates and the calculations

of the admission seekers correctly made for choice of subject and college on

the basis of the admission policy originally announced cannot be allowed to be thwarted and the students

taken by surprise. It was further held that the principle of equity and fairness would demand that

the candidates in whose favour a right has accrued and they have exercised

their permissible options based on terms and conditions of the brochure

existing at the relevant time, should not be exposed to avoidable prejudice.

We are therefore of the view that a case for directing admission of the

appellant / writ petitioner is made out.

17. We have also considered the aspect, whether the appellant / writ petitioner would be able to cope

up with the course without having studied Mathematics in Higher Secondary and which subject his

contemporaries would have studied and whether the same comes in the way of grant of relief to the

appellant / writ petitioner. However having given our anxious consideration to the

matter, we are of the view that the same would not come in the way of grant

of relief to the appellant / wri petitioner. We say so for two reasons. It is

not as if study of Mathematics in Higher Secondary is mandatory for

admission to B.Com. (Hons.). If it was so, the same would have formed the

part of the minimum criteria for admission to the said course / programme

laid down by the respondent University. Not only so, several other colleges are not insisting

on the same. Secondly, even the respondent no.4 College, under the FYUP, was not insisting upon the

said eligibility criteria. When the appellant / writ petitioner under the FYUP could have studied B.Com.

(Hons.) without having studied Mathematics in Higher Secondary, we see no reason why we should hold

the appellant / writ petitioner ineligible merely because the respondent University has switched

over from FYUP to the three year programme. Be that as it may, we advise

the appellant / writ petitioner to, by taking special coaching classes or by

other extra effort, make up the said deficiency if any.

18. The Supreme Court in Visveswaraya Technological University Vs.

Krishnendu Halder (2011) 4 SCC 606 while reiterating that the eligibility

conditions for admission being part of the academic policy are beyond the

purview of judicial review, carved out an exception for cases where such

standards / admissions are found to be arbitrary or adversely affecting the

standards fixed by the central body. The central body in the present case

being the Delhi University as aforesaid has not laid down the eligibility

criteria of having studied the subject of Mathematics in higher secondary for

admission to the B.Com. (Hons.) course, though of course has permitted the

Colleges to lay down additional criteria; however the additional criteria

insisted upon by the respondent No.4 College in the facts and circumstances

aforesaid, is found to be arbitrary. A Division Bench of this Court also in

Sangeeta Srivastava Vs. U.N. Singh AIR 1980 Delhi 27 finding callous

indifference on the part of the University and the University playing havoc

with the life and career of the young students seeking admission to the

portals of the University, sustained the admission though in contravention of

the eligibility conditions prescribed.

19. We have also considered the aspect, of the academic session to have

begun in July, 2014 as per the original as well as revised schedule and nearly

three months having elapsed. Ordinarily we would have hesitated from

directing admission at this late stage. However, this year has been a year of

upheavals for admission to the respondent University and its colleges /

colleges affiliated to it. The Supreme Court vide judgment dated 16th

October, 2014 in W.P.(C) No.853/2014 titled Varun Saini Vs. Guru Gobind

Singh Indraprastha University has extended the time for admission to the

said course as well as other similarly placed courses till 21st October, 2014.

There is thus really no delay. Even otherwise, the Supreme Court in Asha

Vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences (2012) 7 SCC 389 in

the context of admission to Medical Colleges, time schedule for admission

whereto has been laid down by the Supreme Court itself, held that though

the authorities cannot grant admission beyond the specifically postulated

cut-off date but where no fault is attributable to the candidate and he/she is

denied admission for arbitrary reasons, the cut-off date should not be

permitted to operate as a bar to admission of such a candidate, particularly

when it would result in complete ruining of the professional career of a

meritorious candidate who was not at fault and who pursued his/her rights

and remedies as expeditiously as possible. It was further held that where

such denial of admission would subvert the ends of justice and would

frustrate the process of law, the Courts can exercise their extraordinary

jurisdiction of admitting candidates to the courses after the deadline.

20. We thus, in the peculiar facts of this case, set aside the judgment of

the learned Single Judge and allow the writ petition by directing the

respondent no.4 Maharaja Agrasen College to within one week after

verifying the testimonials of the appellant/writ petitioner, admit the

appellant/writ petitioner to the B.Com. (Hons.) programme in the academic

session 2014-15 and direct the respondent University also to enter the name

of the appellant / writ petitioner in its record as a student of the respondent

no.4 College.

No costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE

OCTOBER 29, 2014'/„gsr‟