Delhi High Court
Ms. Pallavi Sharma vs College Of Vocational Studies & ... on 6 July, 2015
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 6th July, 2015
+ W.P.(C) No.6398/2015
Ms. PALLAVI SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini & Mr. Ayush Arora,
Advs.
versus
COLLEGE OF VOCATIONAL STUDIES & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Adv. for
University of Delhi.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
CM No.11661/2015 (for exemption).
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The CM stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.6398/2015 & CM No.11660/2015 (for stay).
3. This petition has been received post lunch on listing on urgent
mentioning and has been taken up past 1630 hours.
4. In view of the urgency expressed, of the admissions closing tomorrow
i.e. 7th July, 2015 by 1300 hours, the counsel for the petitioner has been
heard.
W.P.(C) No.6398/2015 Page 1 of 7
5. The petition is filed impugning the action of the respondent no.1
College of Vocational Studies and the respondent no.2 University of Delhi
of refusing to give admission to the petitioner "against the vacant seats of
B.A. (Vocational Courses)" despite the petitioner being eligible for
admission thereto and having more marks than the cut off marks (above
88%) for taking admission in the said course as per the third cut off list
declared by the respondent no.1 College of Vocational Studies.
6. The counsel for the respondent no.2 University of Delhi appears on
advance notice.
7. The petitioner has been denied admission to the B.A. (Vocational
Courses) for the reason of the petitioner, in the Central Registration Form
known as „OMR‟ filled by her having sought admissions only in, (i) B.A.
(Hons.) Economics, (ii) B.A. (Hons.) English, (iii) B.Com and (iv) B.Com
(Hons.) courses and having not sought admission in B.A. (Vocational
Courses).
8. It is the case of the petitioner that she has scored 89% marks in the
Commerce stream in Class-XIIth examination but has not been able to secure
admission in any of the courses aforesaid for which she has applied.
W.P.(C) No.6398/2015 Page 2 of 7
However on coming to know of the cut off percentage declared in the third
list declared, of 88% for admission to B.A. (Vocational Courses), she wants
admission thereto.
9. The counsel for the petitioner has argued, that the fact that the
petitioner while filling up the OMR Form and mentioning the subjects in
which she was seeking admission, did not fill up B.A. (Vocational Courses),
is a mere technicality and which technicality should not be allowed to come
in the way of admission of the petitioner, who till date does not have
admission in any course, getting admission to the said courses. It is further
argued that the non-filling of the B.A. (Vocational Courses) by the petitioner
in the OMR Form is an error and for which the petitioner cannot be
penalized. Strong reliance is placed on the judgment dated 22nd July, 2010 of
the undersigned in W.P.(C) No.4782/2010 titled Saurabh Vs. GNCT of
Delhi.
10. The counsel for the respondent no.2 University of Delhi of course,
opposes the petition.
11. I am unable to find the petitioner to have made out any case
whatsoever. The procedure for admission prescribed by the respondent no.2
W.P.(C) No.6398/2015 Page 3 of 7
University of Delhi having provided for the admission seekers to fill up their
choice of college and choice of courses in which they want to pursue
graduation, admission of a candidate who has not applied for admission to a
particular college or to a particular course cannot be directed. If the same is
done, it will throw the entire admission process out of gear and create a
chaos. As aforesaid, it is not as if the choice of subjects was left to be
exercised by the students after the cut off lists are successively declared. It is
for this reason only that the applicants, in the OMR Form were required to
fill the subject / courses to which they sought admission. The counsel for the
respondent no.2 University of Delhi has rightly contended that it is not as if
the petitioner could not have filled up the course of B.A. (Vocational
Courses) in which she now claims admission. The petitioner however did
not and cannot now be directed to be admitted to the said course merely
because she fulfils the criteria for admission thereto.
12. Though there is undoubtedly the principle of merit being not
disregarded but the inter se merit has to be seen only of those who are in the
race and merit, howsoever higher of a person who has chosen not to partake
in the race cannot be made a ground for declaring a non-participant a
winner.
W.P.(C) No.6398/2015 Page 4 of 7
13. Supreme Court, in Union of India Vs. Dalbir Singh AIR 2009 SC
2438 held that a candidate having opted to have his case considered only
under the OBC category, cannot thereafter claim that his case requires to be
considered in the general merit, only because he has secured better
percentage of marks than the last candidate selected in the general list. The
direction for considering the claim under the general category was set aside.
Similarly, a Division Bench of this Court in Anand Lal Yadav Vs. NCT of
Delhi MANU/DE/1758/2002 held that candidates cannot be permitted to
change the category under which they originally applied, after the last date
fixed for receipt of applications. Reference may also be made to Maharshi
Dayanand University Vs. Surjit Kaur JT (2010) 7 SC 179 laying down that
no mandamus directing educational institutions to act contrary to their rules
can be issued in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. The Division Bench of this Court in judgment dated 3 rd March,
2011 in LPA No.599/2010 titled Varun Kumar Agarwal Vs. Union of India
also held the prospectus to be binding. All the said cases as well as a host of
other case law have been discussed by the undersigned in Jyoti Yadav Vs.
Government of NCT of Delhi MANU/DE/2728/2010 and in Sagar Sethia
Vs. Delhi Technological University MANU/DE/1417/2011.
W.P.(C) No.6398/2015 Page 5 of 7
14. As far as the reliance on Saurabh supra is concerned, the same also in
my view is misconceived. Saurabh was a case of a candidate who had been
invited for counselling being denied admission for the reason of being
unable to reach the venue of counselling for reasons beyond his control. The
observations made while allowing such a candidate to partake in the
counselling cannot be stretched out of context and be applied to unrelated
facts.
15. The counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the admission, if
granted to the petitioner, would not be to the prejudice of anyone.
16. The aforesaid argument also is erroneous. The seats available in the
respondent no.1 College of Vocational Studies even in the B.A. (Vocational
Courses) are limited. Even if it were to be held that there are no candidates
left for admission after the announcement of third cut off list, as far as I
recollect there is a provision for subsequent cut off list also and in which the
students, though having lesser marks than the petitioner but who had applied
for admission to the said course, would be admitted. Grant of admission to
the petitioner who has not even applied for admission to the course would
therefore be detrimental to the said students. Moreover, there is no case of a
„vacant seat‟ as has been made out by the petitioner.
W.P.(C) No.6398/2015 Page 6 of 7
There is no merit in the petition which is dismissed.
No costs.
Dasti under signature of Court Master.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
JULY 06, 2015
Pp/gsr..
