Delhi High Court
Heeral Yadav vs National Institute Of Fashion ... on 23 November, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7327/2015
HEERAL YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Sanjeet Ranjan, proxy counsel for Mr
M.K. Bhardwaj, Adv.
versus
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY
& ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr S. Shantanu & Ms A. Shivani, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 23.11.2015
CM No. 27623/2015
1. This is an application moved, in effect, for advancing the date of
hearing. I must only record that the petitioner's conduct is a little curious.
2. Notice in this petition was issued as far back as on 04.08.2015. The
notice was made returnable on 13.08.2015. On that date, the court recorded
that notice could not issue to the respondent as the process fee filed was
under objection. Consequently, a short date was given and the matter was,
once again made returnable on a short date i.e. 26.08.2015.
2.1 On 26.08.2015, the petitioner was given time to file a rejoinder. It
was recorded in the order, on that date, that the petitioner had concealed,
according to the respondents, material facts. The matter was, thereafter,
posted for hearing, on 03.09.2015.
2.2 On 03.09.2015, at the request of the petitioner, further two weeks
were granted to file a rejoinder. The petition was posted for hearing on
21.09.2015. On that date, the petitioner, once again, sought time to file a
rejoinder. There was no assertion as regards any urgency in the matter.
3. Admittedly, the rejoinder has been filed only on 19.11.2015.
Immediately upon filing of the rejoinder, the captioned application has been
moved for advancing the date of hearing from 23.02.2016, in view of the
expressed urgency in the matter.
4. According to me, if one were to have regard to the manner in which
the petition has been prosecuted, it is not a case for advancing the date.
However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner must have a chance to
press her writ petition, since it is contended that it would be rendered
infructuous if, the matter is taken up on the due date i.e. 23.02.2016, the
captioned application is allowed, despite the tardy manner in which
pleadings were sought to be completed.
4.1 The matter is thus, taken up for hearing today as the counsel for the
respondents is also present in court.
5. The application is, accordingly, disposed of.
W.P.(C) 7327/2015 & CM No. 13451/2015
6. The prayers in the writ petition are as follows:
"..... (i) To issue a appropriate writ for declaring the action of
the respondents in not giving admission to the Petitioner in
Fashion Design Discipline in any of National Institute of
Fashion Design as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and
direct the respondents to give admission to the petitioner in
Fashion Design Course.
(ii) To declare the action of respondents in ignoring the merit
in admission in Fashion Design as illegal and issue appropriate
directions for admission of petitioner in Fashion Design
Discipline at 3rd semester level....."
7. Briefly, the grievance of the petitioner is that, though her preference
was for a course in "Fashion Design", she was given admission in
"Accessory Design". To be noted, the petitioner's admission was brought
about after she had cleared a competitive examination conducted by
respondent no.1. The petitioner had been ranked in the general category as
3388, while in the OBC category, she was ranked as 519.
8. It appears that there is a system in place, established by respondent
no.1, which allows a student to seek transfer from one course to the other.
Accordingly, the petitioner has also filed an application for "Students
Permanent Transfer" (in short SPT). In the said application, she had given
her preferences, in order of priority, for Fashion Design, at the following
centres: (i) Mumbai, (ii) Hyderabad, (iii) Bangalore, (iv) Delhi, and (v)
Shilong.
8.1 The record shows that in sync with the petitioner's rank she, along
with another candidate, was offered transfer of course to Fashion Design.
This is borne out on a perusal of a communication dated 11.08.2015,
exchanged between the Jt. Director of respondent no.1 and the head of the
Delhi centre. A perusal of the said communication would show that the
father of the petitioner was not willing to accept admittance to the Shilong
centre of respondent no.1 for the Fashion Design course, though, as
indicated above, this was one of the preferences of the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not deny the same, however,
wishes to give explanation with regard to the availability of the seats in other
centres as well, in respect of which preference was given.
10. Continuing with the narrative, the petitioner being aggrieved,
approached this court by way of the present writ petition. As indicated
above, notice in the petition was issued on 04.08.2015, pursuant to which
the respondents have filed a counter affidavit. As a matter of fact,
communication dated 11.08.2015 came to light only when counter affidavit
was filed by respondent no.1. Rejoinder to the counter affidavit, as
indicated above, has also been filed.
11. What has, in addition, emerged upon hearing counsels in the matter, is
that, the petitioner has admittedly been issued an admit card for the third
semester in the course, in which, she is presently prosecuting her studies i.e.
Accessory Design. I am also informed by the learned counsel for the
respondents that the subjects offered in the third semester in Accessory
Design and Fashion Design are quite different. Before me, the counsel for
the respondents has placed an email sent to him by his client, which adverts
to the difference in the subjects:
Sr. Subjects offered in the Subjects offered in the
No. third semester of bachelorthird semester of
of Design (Accessory
bachelor of Design
Design) (Fashion Design)
1 Cognitive Process Fashion Illustration and
Design I
2 Drawing and Rendering Pattern Making I
3 Form Studies Draping I
4 History and Philosophy of Garment Construction I
Design
5 Material Manipulation Elements of Textiles
6 Photography Surface Design
Techniques I
7 -- History of Design &
Fashion I
8 -- Fashion Studies
12. Based on the above, learned counsel for the respondents says that not
only was there a concealment of the material aspect of the matter by the
petitioner, which is that, she had been offered a transfer of course in Shilong
Centre, but also the fact that it was today too late in the day for a change to
be brought as the petitioner has not been instructed in the subjects
concerning the Fashion Design qua the third semester.
13. I may only note, though that a perusal of the counter affidavit, in
particular paragraph 3.6, shows that there is one seat available in Delhi in
the OBC category. The issue before me, therefore, is: should I dismiss the
writ petition merely on the ground that there is a concealment of material
facts, or should I proceed further?
14. In the interest of the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that a crucial
element regarding her being offered a seat in Fashion Design at Shilong
Centre was kept back, I probed the respondents further. It is during that
exercise that it got revealed that the subjects taught in the third semester of
the two disciplines were diametrically different. This is evident upon
perusal of the extract set out above. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that
the petitioner kept back a crucial piece of information which she ought to
have revealed, especially, when this aspect of the matter is examined in the
light of the prayer made in the writ petition wherein she seeks a direction
from this court for her admission to Fashion Design discipline "in any" of
respondent no.1's centres, the difference in the subjects taught in the third
semester would have had an impact on the final decision in the matter.
15. Thus, having regard to the fact that the subjects in the third semester
of the two disciplines i.e. Fashion Design and Accessory Design are
different, in my view, the petition cannot be entertained. The petition and
the application are, accordingly, dismissed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
NOVEMBER 23, 2015
kk
