Sakshi Gandhi vs University Of Delhi And Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 8539 Del

$~21
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+       W.P.(C) 9711/2015
        SAKSHI GANDHI                                    ..... Petitioner
                     Through:           Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Adv.

                              versus

        UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR.               ..... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal and
                               Ms. Simran Jeet, Advs. for R1.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
                     ORDER

% 17.11.2015

1. Mr. Rupal appears for respondent No.1 University. He has brought to court a counter affidavit, which has been placed before me.

2. A copy of the counter affidavit has also been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner.

3. Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner, says that he does not wish to file a rejoinder.

4. Accordingly, counsels have proceeded to address arguments in the matter. Before I proceed further, I may only extract the prayers sought in the writ petition :-

"..(a). Mandamus directing the respondent University to forthwith admit the petitioner in LL.B Course in the academic Session of 2015-2016.

(b). Direct the respondent University to consider the admission of the petitioner to such vacant seat from amongst the next in the rank as declared by the respondent W.P.(C) 9711/2015 page 1 of 2 University..."

4.1 In context of the prayers and submissions made before me, the following needs to be noted :-

4.2 It is not disputed before me that in the LLB Entrance Exam, the petitioner was ranked 1555.

4.3. A perusal of the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 University is demonstrative of the fact that the last candidate who got admission in the general category (which is the category in which the petitioner falls) was ranked as 1500.

4.4 Therefore, on this short ground, the petitioner's prayer cannot be granted.

5. Furthermore, quite clearly, the process of admission is over and, according to respondent No.1 University, the first semester classes stood concluded on 13.11.2015, as per the stand taken in its counter affidavit. 5.1 This apart, respondent No.1 University has also averred that there are 56 candidates who are ranked higher than the petitioner, and that, there are no vacant seats in the general category as of now.

6. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner, as indicated above.

7. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

                                               RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
NOVEMBER 17, 2015
s.pal
W.P.(C) 9711/2015                                                 page 2 of 2