Delhi High Court
Prashatn Chauhan vs University Of Delhi & Anr. on 26 September, 2014
#11
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6398/2014 & CM APPL. 15387/2014
PRASHATN CHAUHAN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. R.K. Saini with Ms. Vivya
Nagpal, Advocates
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal with
Ms. Yanmi Phazang, Advocates
% Date of Decision : 26th September, 2014
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the action on the part
of the respondents in not giving admission to the petitioner against the
vacant seat in LL.B. course for the Academic Session 2014-2015 for which
he had been provisionally selected in counselling after having qualified the
entrance test.
2. Mr. R.K. Saini, learned counsel for petitioner states that seat is still
lying vacant and would be wasted only on account of the fact that
petitioner's graduation result has not been declared by the School of Open
Learning, Delhi University (for short "SOL") before the last date of
admission.
3. Mr. Saini contends that respondent-University cannot take advantage
of its own wrong and negligence. He points out that this kind of situation
with students of SOL has been occurring almost every year as the
respondent-University does not declare their results till October of the year
and as a consequence of this students suffers for no fault on their part.
4. Mr. Saini emphasis that respondent-University by prescribing the last
date of admission in higher courses before declaration of result of SOL tries
to take advantage of its own wrong.
5. Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, learned counsel for respondents states that
he has till date not received any instructions. It is pertinent to mention that
on the last two dates of hearing, the matter had been adjourned at the request
of Mr. Rupal to obtain instructions. Consequently, this Court has no other
option but to go ahead with the matter.
6. Upon a perusal of the paper book, this Court finds that even with
regard to admission in LL.B. course for the year 2012-13, this Court in
similar cases had issued interim order/direction on 30th November, 2012
directing the respondents to give admission to students. Thereafter the said
petitions were allowed by orders dated 30th October, 2013 and 2nd
December, 2013. The relevant portion of the order dated 2nd December,
2013 passed in W.P.(C) 5394/2012 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"7. ..........If the University, for one reason or the other is not
able to declare the result of the qualifying examination, well in time
so as to enable these students to take admission in the professional
course/post-graduate course as the case may be, it cannot penalise
the students for its own delay in declaring their result.
8. Had the University declared the result of the qualifying
examination on or before the last date stipulated by it for admission
to the LLB course, the petitioners on the basis of their result in the
entrance test, would have been able to get admission and would not
have been compelled to approach this Court. Though the number of
students pursuing under-graduate courses through the School of
Open Learning may be quite large, as submitted by Mr. Rupal,
Advocate for the University of Delhi, it is for the University to
ensure that considering the provision which allows such students to
appear in the entrance test for admission to the professional
courses/post-graduate courses, their results are declared, well in
time. For this purpose, the University may either hold their
examination before the examination for the regular students are held
or it may arrange sufficient examiners to ensure that the results are
declared on or before the last date stipulated by the University for
admission to the professional course/post-graduate course as the
case may be. Of course, this view will not be applicable in the cases,
where the qualifying examination in the undergraduate course was
conducted by a university other than Delhi University. This is so
because, Delhi University cannot be held responsible for the delay in
declaration of the results by the university."
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid order, respondents are directed to give
admission to the petitioner against the vacant LL.B. seat in Academic
Session 2014-15 for which he had been provisionally selected in the
counselling after having qualified the entrance test as per his rank in the
General category. It is clarified that admission to the petitioner shall be
subject to his passing the graduation course. Further, petitioner shall not
claim any special equity arising out from this order.
Order datsi.
MANMOHAN, J
SEPTEMBER 26, 2014
rn
