Delhi High Court
Shubham Jain And Ors. vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ... on 14 August, 2015
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 14th August, 2015.
+ W.P.(C) 7770/2015
SHUBHAM JAIN AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Sanjeev Narula & Mr. Vipin
Malik, Advs.
Versus
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY
AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar, Sr. Adv. with Ms.
Sumedha Dang and Mr. Vipin Singh,
Advs. for R-1/GGSIPU.
Mr. Anil Soni, Adv. for R-2/AICTE.
Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Deepak Vohra and Mr. Abhinav
Agnihotra, Advs. for R-3.
AND
+ W.P.(C) 7788/2015
MANI RASTOGI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Dalip Rastogi, Mr. G.L. Bhatia
and Ms. Sandhya, Advs.
Versus
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY
AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar, Sr. Adv. with Ms.
Sumedha Dang and Mr. Vipin Singh,
Advs. for R-1/GGSIPU.
Mr. Anil Soni, Adv. for R-2/AICTE.
W.P.(C) 7770/2015 & W.P.(C) 7788/2015 Page 1 of 14
Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Deepak Vohra and Mr. Abhinav
Agnihotra, Advs. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 14.08.2015
CM No.15347/2015 in W.P.(C) No.7770/2015 & CM No.15417/2015 in
W.P.(C) No.7788/2015 (both for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The applications are disposed of.
W.P.(C) 7770/2015 & CM No.15346/2015 (for stay) & W.P.(C)
7788/2015 & CM No.154178/2015 (for stay)
3. The sixteen petitioners in W.P.(C) No.7770/2015 and the three
petitioners in W.P.(C) No.7788/2015 (which has been received just before
lunch, on listing on urgent mentioning) are aspirants for admission to
Bachelor of Technology (B.Tech.) course in the respondent No.3 Maharaja
Agarsain Institute of Technology (respondent No.3 College) affiliated to the
respondent No.1 Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (respondent
No.1 University). The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)
which has accorded recognition to the respondent No.3 College for imparting
education in B.Tech. course is impleaded as respondent No.2 in both the
petitions. The petitions impugn the Notification dated 7 th August, 2015 of
the respondent No.1 University to the effect that self-financing colleges /
institutes, as the respondent No.3 College, will be solely responsible for
making any admissions, contrary to the instructions of the respondent No.1
University and that the respondent No.1 University shall not permit
regularisation of any such admissions. The petitions also seek a direction to
the respondent No.1 University to admit the petitioners to B.Tech. course in
the academic session 2015-2016 in the respondent No.3 College.
4. Though the petitions have come up before this Court for the first time
today itself (taken up for hearing at 1500 hours) but considering the nature of
the controversy and the relief claimed, it is felt that inviting counter-
affidavits or otherwise not dealing with the petitions today itself, would
make the reliefs claimed therein infructuous, even if the petitioners were to
be ultimately found to be entitled thereto.
5. Thus, the senior counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.7770/2015,
the senior counsel for the respondent No.1 University, the counsel for the
respondent No.2 AICTE as well as the senior counsel for the respondent
No.3 College, appearing on advance notice, have been heard with an intent
to dispose of the matters one way or other.
6. Though prima facie it appears that the aspirants for admission have
filed these petitions as a proxy for the respondent No.3 College, inasmuch as
the grievance urged ought to be of the respondent No.3 College and the
respondent No.3 College itself, if aggrieved, ought to have come before the
Court but since the aspect of, seats in B.Tech. course in the respondent No.3
College (which the senior counsel for the respondent No.1 University
himself contends enjoys a good reputation and high priority with the
admission seekers) going waste, is at stake, this fact is ignored.
7. The respondent No.1 University, as per the schedule of admission
announced, conducted the last i.e. third round of counselling on 16 th July,
2015; thereafter, a fourth round of counselling called the "spot counselling"
was also conducted on 30th July, 2015. The respondent No.1 University
thereafter came out with a Schedule dated 4th August, 2015 for filling up
remaining vacancies, if any, after 31st July, 2015, in the academic session
2015-2016. It was stated therein that after conducting third round of Online
Counselling and Spot Counselling, there were vacant seats in different
programmes in different colleges; the vacancy position in different
programmes in different colleges was attached to the said Schedule. The
Schedule prescribed, i) the date of 5th August, 2015 for constitution of
Admission Committee at respective colleges comprising inter alia of an
observer of the respondent No.1 University; ii) the date of 6th August, 2015
for Newspaper Advertisements by Affiliated Colleges regarding filling up of
vacancies; iii) time from 6th August, 2015 to 10th August, 2015 to eligible
candidates for making applications to the respective affiliated colleges; iv)
the date of 12th August, 2015 for display by each college of the merit list on
the website and notice boards; v) the dates of 13th & 14th August, 2015 for
counselling to be held by the respective colleges from the merit list, for
provisional allotment of seats; and lastly, vi) the date of 16th August, 2015
for admission.
8. In the list of colleges appended to the said Schedule, as against the
respondent No.3 College, „NIL‟ seats available in the B.Tech. course, were
shown.
9. The respondent No.1 University informs, i) that the last date
prescribed by the Supreme Court in Parshavanath Charitable Trust Vs. All
India Council for Technical Education (2013) 3 SCC 385 for admission to
the B.Tech. course is 15th August, 2015; and, ii) that the procedure as
announced vide the Schedule dated 4th August, 2015 has been introduced by
the respondent No.1 University for the first time this year, after making
efforts to complete the counselling by 31st July, 2015 and to ensure that no
vacant seats remain. It is stated that the respondent No.1 University is in the
process of evaluating that the procedures so introduced is not misused /
abused by the colleges or by the students for admissions otherwise than on
merit.
10. The respondent No.3 College claims that contrary to the Schedule
dated 4th August, 2015 showing nil vacant seats in B. Tech programme in
respondent No.3 College, it has 67 vacancies in B.Tech. course. It is their
case that the said 67 seats though had been filled up earlier but the students
who had been admitted thereto, have either withdrawn their candidature or
communicated that they would not be joining the respondent No.3 College.
It is stated that some of the students have also taken back their original
certificates.
11. The stand of the respondent No.3 College is that the respondent No.1
University announced the vacancies in different programmes / Colleges in
the Schedule dated 4th August, 2015, on the basis of allocations made in the
counselling conducted by it and without bothering to collect any information
whether the student allocated a seat in the counselling having joined the
college allocated or not or having withdrawn the admission earlier taken.
They claim that they, on 1st August, 2015 itself, informed the respondent
No.1 University of the said position and sought permission for filling up of
the said vacant seats. A copy of the letter dated 1 st August, 2015 in this
regard bearing the stamp in acknowledgment of the respondent No.1
University is handed over in the Court. The respondent No.3 College further
claims to have, after publication of the Schedule dated 4 th August, 2015
supra, written two letters dated 5th August, 2015 to the respondent No.1
University, copies of which also are handed over and of which one bears the
stamp in acknowledgement of receipt of the respondent No.1 University.
They state, that upon not receiving any reply from the respondent No.1
University, a reminder dated 7th August, 2015 was issued and whereto a
reply dated 11th August, 2015 was received from the respondent No.1
University.
12. It however appears, that the respondent No.3 College, notwithstanding
the Schedule dated 4th August, 2015 not showing any vacant seats in
respondent No.3 College, advertised the seats being available for admission
and which led the respondent No.1 University to publish the impugned
Notification dated 7th August, 2015 supra, cautioning the students. The
respondent No.1 University accordingly, in its reply dated 11th August, 2015
supra also, drew the attention of the respondent No.3 College to the said
Notification dated 7th August, 2015 and asked it not to admit any students.
13. The petitioners have filed these petitions claiming the reliefs aforesaid,
contending that the vacant seats in the respondent No.3 College be not
allowed to be wasted and seeking admission thereo. Reliance is placed on
Varun Saini, Vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University 2014 (12)
SCALE 184 to contend that such seats are a natural resource.
14. It is the contention of the senior counsel for the respondent No.1
University:
(i) that the respondent No.1 University apprehends that the
respondent No.3 College or any miscreants may have blocked the
seats in the respondent No.3 College, with an intent to fill up later
with non-meritorious candidates, thereby jeoparding the fairness of the
admission process and to the prejudice of the meritorious students;
(ii) that the respondent No.3 College did not approach the
respondent No.1 University with the vacancy position or seeking
appointment of an observer for making admissions in accordance with
the Schedule dated 4th August, 2015;
(iii) that the respondent No.3 College appears to be attempting to,
while retaining the fee deposited by the aforesaid 67 students who are
alleged to have withdrawn, also earn fee from the fresh admissions
made for the said seats;
(iv) that it is not as if any seat in the respondent No.3 College would
remain vacant; after the first semester, upgradation is permitted and
students who have been able to get admission in a stream lower in
their priority would be able to, in the event of seat being vacant in a
stream with higher priority, upgrade thereto; that the seats so vacated,
can be filled up by migration from other colleges / institutes; allowing
the vacant seats to be filled up now would thus be to the prejudice of
those who would have been able to upgrade / migrate;
(v) that the aforesaid can also give rise to profiteering by the
affiliated colleges who may use the said procedure for earning
capitation fee; and,
(vi) that the respondent No.3 college has not even satisfied the
respondent No.1 University of the admitted students having
withdrawn their admission.
15. I have considered the aforesaid contentions of the respondent No.1
University.
16. This Court, at this stage, is not concerned with the apprehensions
expressed of misuse / attempted misuse, of the procedure introduced by the
respondent No.1 University this year for the first time. They are after all
only apprehensions, howsoever justified. This Court for the time being is
concerned with an attempt being made to ensure that no valuable seat
remains vacant, specially when the last date of admission is 17th August,
2015, 15th and 16th August, 2015 being holidays. This Court, while directing
such seats to be filled up, not at the whim of respondent No.3 College, but in
a fair manner always impose conditions to ensure the respondent No.3
College does not unduly benefit therefrom.
17. The senior counsel for the respondent No.3 College, on instructions,
states that the respondent No.3 College through its Director, Mr. M.L. Goel
undertakes to this Court, to deposit the entire amount received from the 67
candidates who have withdrawn their candidatures from the respondent No.3
College with the respondent No.1 University for the respondent No.1
University to refund the same to such the students, if found entitled thereto
or to return the same to the respondent No.3 College after conducting an
enquiry, if the respondent No.3 College is found entitled thereto or to retain
the same itself.
18. Similarly, the aspect of misuse / attempted misuse, if any by the
respondent No.3 College is taken care of by providing that merely because
this Court is permitting the vacant seats to be filled up, would not prevent the
respondent No.1 University from, if otherwise deems it necessary,
conducting an investigation and / or taking action, including of revoking the
affiliation, if feels necessary in the facts of the case.
19. As far as the apprehension expressed by the senior counsel for the
respondent No.1 University of the admissions, if so allowed being to the
prejudice of the other students who may be able to upgrade / migrate, is
concerned, I am of the opinion that the same has no merit. The students who
have been admitted till the third round of counselling were prevented from
participating in the fourth round of spot counselling held on 30th July, 2015
and the admissions made in the fourth round of Spot Counselling similarly
prejudiced the right of students admitted till third round to upgrade. It is also
not as if this Court is directing fifth round of counselling. The decision to
hold the same is of the respondent No.1 University itself. All that this Court
is doing upon finding the assessment of the respondent No.1 University of
vacant seats in the respondent No.3 College to be factually incorrect is to
direct the respondent No.1 University to include the respondent No.3
College also in the fifth round of counselling, from which the respondent
No.1 University had excluded the respondent No.3 College on the basis of its
finding of no seats being available therein.
20. In this respect, I indeed find gaps in the assessment made by the
respondent No.1 University, of the vacant seats, before publishing the
Schedule dated 4th August, 2015. No attempt, after 30th July, 2015, appears
to have been made to collect any data individually from the colleges of the
vacancy position, if any therein. The respondent No.1 University may
consider the said aspect in the following academic session.
21. The respondent No.1 University has not suggested any condition
which can be further imposed to prevent abuse by respondent No.3 College
or anyone else. After all the procedure to be adopted in the said fifth round,
in which respondent No.3 College is now being ordered to be included, is
prescribed by respondent No.1 University itself and is expected to be fair. It
is not as if this Court is directing admission of petitioner over other
meritorious candidates.
22. Accordingly, it is directed:
(I) the respondent No.3 College to report to the Office of the
Registrar of the respondent No.1 University on Sunday i.e. 16 th
August, 2015 at 1000 hours to satisfy the respondent No.1 University
about the withdrawal of candidatures by those who had obtained
admissions and / or the seats being thus vacant;
(II) the respondent No.1 University as well as the respondent No.3
College to, on their respective website, forthwith advertise the factum
of the counselling scheduled on 17th August, 2015 for approximately
67 vacant seats, subject to verification by the respondent No.1
University, so as to inform all concerned, to participate in the
counselling;
(III) the respondent No.3 College to also insert advertisement in
prominent newspapers either on 15th or 16th August, 2015 of the
counselling aforesaid scheduled on 17th August, 2015;
(IV) the counselling to take place at the respondent No.3 College at
1400 hours on 17th August, 2015 and to be completed on the same
day;
(V) the admissions during the counselling to abide by the procedure
prescribed in the Schedule dated 4th August, 2015; and
(VI) the respondent No.3 College to, in accordance with its
undertaking aforesaid which is accepted and by which the Director of
the respondent No.3 College is ordered to be bound, deposit the entire
amount received from the 67 candidates who have withdrawn their
candidature from the respondent No.3 College, with the respondent
No.1 University on or before 18th August, 2015.
23. The petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
No costs.
Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court
Master.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
AUGUST 14, 2015
Bs..
