Delhi High Court
Shiv Mehra (Minor) vs University Of Delhi & Anr on 15 September, 2014
50
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5912/2014 & CM APPL. 14490/2014
SHIV MEHRA (MINOR) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Lalit Bhasin, Advocate with
Mr. Ranjan Jha and Ms. Bhavna,
Advocates.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohinder Jit Singh Rupal and
Ms. Yanmi Phazang, Advocates
for respondent No.1/University of Delhi.
Ms. Beenashaw N. Soni, Advocate for
respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
ORDER
% 15.09.2014
Present writ petition has been filed seeking admission of petitioner in
B.Com. (H) under sports quota in Hindu College for Academic Session
2014-2015.
It is the case of the petitioner that after conducting his sports trial, he
was declared successful but he was denied admission on the ground of late
submission of GCE result of 12th Class from a UAE School and subsequent
inaction of respondent-University in not granting approval sought by
respondent No.2-College.
Mr. Lalit Bhasin, learned counsel for petitioner states that petitioner
had handed over copy of his mark-sheets to the respondent No.2-College on
19th August, 2014 and in turn respondent No.2-College had sought approval
from the respondent No.1-University on the same day.
Mr. Mohinder Jit Singh Rupal, learned counsel for respondent No.1-
University of Delhi states that respondent No.2-college should not have
accepted the petitioner's application form for admission as till the date of
filling up the forms, petitioner's result had not been declared. He, however,
states that since respondent No.2-college had led the petitioner to
believe/presume that he was entitled for admission, respondent No.1-
University would leave the decision to the Court, but would request that it
should not be treated as precedent.
Ms. Beenashaw N. Soni, learned counsel for respondent No.2-college,
on instructions of Principal of the College, states that admission in Sports
category are made by Sports Admission Committee constituted as per Delhi
University Guidelines. She states that the Sports Guidelines for
Undergraduate Courses of Delhi University do not provide that students
whose results are awaited cannot appear for sports trial. In these
circumstances, according to her, respondent No.2-college had allowed the
petitioner to give sports trial. She also states that as a seat is available in
B.Com. (H) Course, respondent No. 2-college has no objection if petitioner
is granted admission.
Mr. Rupal, learned counsel for respondent No.1-University of Delhi
states that the process adopted by respondent No.2-college is contrary to the
University Guidelines and the Admission form.
Having heard the parties, this Court is of the view that since the
petitioner has played ICC under 19 Cricket World Cup 2014 and respondent
No.2-college had conveyed to the petitioner that his case has been
recommended for admission under the sports quota, the respondent-College
on the peculiar facts of the present case is directed to grant admission to the
petitioner in accordance with prayer 'a' provided petitioner complies with
all admission formalities. The issue of law is left open.
At the cost of repetition, it is clarified that the admission is granted to
the petitioner only because respondent-College had recommended the
petitioner's case for admission in July, 2014 and had conveyed an
impression to petitioner that he would be granted admission. Consequently,
this order shall not be treated as a precedent.
With the aforesaid observations, present petition and application stand
disposed of.
Order dasti.
MANMOHAN, J
SEPTEMBER 15, 2014
js
