Delhi High Court
Shilpi Verma vs University Of Delhi & Anr on 21 July, 2015
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 21st July, 2015
+ W.P.(C) 6474/2015
SHILPI VERMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vishwendra Verma, Adv.
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Adv. for R-1.
Ms. Manisha Singh & Mr. Amit
Bansal, Advs. for R-2.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. This petition came up before this Court first on 8th July, 2015 when
inter alia the following order was passed:
"4. The petitioner has been denied admission to the M.Sc. (Fabric and Apparel
Science) course in the respondent No.2 Lady Irwin College on the ground of not
meeting the eligibility criteria of having done graduation in B.Sc. (Home Science).
5. The contention of the petitioner is that though the graduation done by the
petitioner from Satyam Fashion Institute, Noida affiliated to Smt. Nathibai
Damodar Tharkersey Women‟s University, Mumbai is labelled as Bachelor of
Design but the curriculum of the course in which the petitioner has graduated is the
same as the curriculum of the B.Sc. (Home Science) and the petitioner has studied
and passed all the subjects of B.Sc. (Home Science) listed out in the eligibility
criteria.
6. It has been enquired from the counsel for the respondent No.1 University
of Delhi appearing on advance notice, whether the Equivalence Committee of the
respondent University has examined the matter.
7. The counsel for the respondent No.1 University states that the aforesaid
University appears to be a new University and it may be possible that the
Equivalence Committee has not had the occasion to examine. On further enquiry,
it is informed that the Equivalence Committee is not a Standing Committee and is
constituted by the Academic Council on requirement basis. It is further informed
that the constitution of the Equivalence Committee may take time. The counsel has
further suggested that there is a Grievance Committee of the Lady Irwin College as
well as of the respondent University and the petitioner can approach the same
8. Issue notice.
9. Notice is accepted by the counsel for the respondent No.1 University. The
petitioner to serve respondent No.2 Lady Irwin College by all modes including
dasti returnable on 10th July, 2015.
10. The respondent No.1 University to also examine, whether the claim of the
petitioner can be got examined by the Vice-Chancellor of the University in exercise
of his emergent powers."
2. Thereafter, from time to time, to enable the counsels for the
respondents to obtain instructions, the matter was adjourned. On 14 th July,
2015, the counsel for the respondent No.1 University of Delhi informed that
the university from which the petitioner has done her graduation, has
probably not applied to the respondent No.1 University for recognition of
their courses or sought equivalence and in absence whereof, the candidature
of the petitioner could not be considered. Notwithstanding the same, the
counsels were asked to obtain definite instructions.
3. The counsel for the respondent No.1 University has today handed
over in Court, a decision of the "PG Admission Committee (Home Science)"
on the prayer of the petitioner contained in the present petition and as per
which decision, the course of Bachelor of Designs in which the petitioner
has done her graduation, is not equivalent to B.Sc. Home Science (Pass or
Hons.) of the respondent University. The counsels for the respondents thus
state that the petitioner cannot be considered for admission.
4. The counsel for the petitioner has however invited attention to the
eligibility prescribed by the respondents for admission to the M.Sc. in Fabric
and Apparel Science course and which is as under:
"8E M.Sc. Course in Fabric and Apparel Intake Capacity ELIGIBILITY
Science Examination CONDITIONS
19 55% or above
marks in
aggregate in
Home Science
B.Sc. (Hons.) in Home Science / B.Sc. (Pass) in
Home Science : (3 or 4 years course) after (10+2)
from Delhi University or any other University
whose Examination is recognized the University of
Delhi as equivalent and fulfil other conditions of
eligibility. Should have passed any three subjects
in the following areas: Fundamentals of Fabrics and
Apparel Science / Apparel for Children and
Adolescents / Fabric Science / Indian Textiles
Heritage / Advances Apparel Construction /
Applied Textile Design / Dyeing and Printing /
Design Concepts / Fashion Development / Fashion
Studies."
It is argued that the petitioner has done four instead of three subjects
required under the aforesaid eligibility criteria.
5. The aforesaid eligibility conditions, in my opinion, comprise of two
components. The first component is, that the candidate seeking admission
should have done B.Sc. in Home Science (Hons.) or B.Sc. (Pass) in Home
Science, "from Delhi University or any other University whose examination
is recognized by the University of Delhi as equivalent".
6. The counsel for the respondent No.1 University on enquiry whether
the B.Sc. (Design) examination of the Satyam Fashion Institute, Noida
affiliated to Smt. Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women‟s University,
Mumbai has been recognized by the respondent No.1 University as
equivalent to B.Sc. (Hons.) in Home Science or B.Sc. (Pass) in Home
Science of the Delhi University, replies in the negative and has reiterated
that the University from which the petitioner has done Bachelor of Design,
has not even sought equivalence from the respondent No.1 University.
7. The counsel for the petitioner of course contends that once the Smt.
Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women‟s University, Mumbai has been
recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC) the courses offered
by it should also be recognized as equivalent to the courses of Delhi
University. He however is unable to show any law, rule, regulation on the
basis whereof such a contention is raised.
8. I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention. The requirement as
per the eligibility conditions supra and which are not under challenge, is of
the respondent Delhi University having recognized the examination of
another University as equivalent to its B.Sc. (Home Science) (Hons. or Pass)
and not of UGC having recognized an institution as a University. The
petitioner thus, does not fulfil the first component of the eligibility condition
supra.
9. The second component of the eligibility condition supra is of not only
having done B.Sc. (Home Science) (Hons. or Pass) or an examination
recognized as equivalent thereto, but with the subjects prescribed therein.
10. Even if it were to be held that the petitioner has studied the required
subjects, the petitioner would be complying with only the second component
of the eligibility condition supra and still cannot be held as compliant with
the first component of the eligibility condition supra.
11. The counsel for the petitioner wants this Court to examine
equivalence.
12. The same is not the domain of this Court. Neither is this Court
equipped to examine equivalence nor can this Court in exercise of powers of
judicial review do so.
13. The counsel for the respondent No.1 University in this regard has
drawn attention to Guru Nanak Dev University Vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal
(2009) 1 SCC 610 in paras No.15&16 whereof, it has been held that
equivalence is a technical academic matter and cannot be implied or
assumed; any decision of the academic body of the University relating to
equivalence should be by a speaking order or resolution, duly published. It
was further held that without the university to which admission is sought
recognizing examination held by another Institution / University as
equivalent, no direction for admission can be issued.
14. Reference in this regard can also be made to Basic Education Board,
U.P. Vs. Upendra Rai (2008) 3 SCC 432 holding that grant of equivalence
or revocation of equivalence is an administrative decision which is in the
sole discretion of the concerned authority and the Court has nothing to do
with such matters; the matter of equivalence is decided by experts; Courts
should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere with it.
15. There is thus no merit in the petition.
Dismissed.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
JULY 21, 2015
„gsr‟
