Delhi High Court
Bhrigu Pal Suraia & Anr. vs Ggsip University & Anr. on 23 November, 2015
$~25-28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgement delivered on: 23.11.2015
+ W.P.(C) 4400/2014
DIVYA CHOUDHARY (MINOR) ..... Petitioner
versus
GGSIP UNIVERSITY & ANR. ..... Respondents
AND
+ W.P.(C) 4401/2014
AKANKSHA CHOUDHARY ..... Petitioner
versus
GGSIP UNIVERSITY & ANR. ..... Respondents
AND
+ W.P.(C) 4742/2014
BHRIGU PAL SURAIA & ANR ..... Petitioners
versus
GGSIP UNIVERSITY & ANR. ..... Respondents
AND
+ W.P.(C) 5142/2014
ANSHUL KUMAR KATHERIA ..... Petitioner
versus
GGSIP UNIVERSITY & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in these cases:
For the petitioners: Mr R.K. Saini, Advocate in WP(C) Nos. 4400/2014, 4401/2014 &
5142/2014.
Mr K.G. Mishra, Advocate in WP(C) No. 4742/2014
For the respondents: Ms Anita Sahni, Advocate for R-1.
Ms Roma Bhagat, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
WP(C) No. 4400/2014 & CM No. 8791/2014
WP(C) No. 4401/2014 & CM No. 8792/2014
WP(C) No. 4742/2014 & CM No. 9451/2014
WP(C) No. 5142/2014 & CM No. 10239/2014
1. These are writ petitions, in which a common question of law arises for
consideration. The common question of law which arises for consideration
is this: Whether the respondent no.1 university could decline admission to
the petitioners in the B.A. (LL.B) /BBA (LL.B) integrated course in the
Scheduled Caste (SC) category only on the ground that a certificate issued in
that behalf, in their favour, was based on a SC/ ST certificate issued to their
parents from a State Government, other than Govt. of NCT of Delhi (in short
GNCTD)?
1.1 It is not in dispute that the petitioners sat and cleared entrance exams
of the respondent no.1 university, and that they sought admission with the
respondent no.1 university in SC category.
2. Concededly, a similar question had arisen before a Single Judge of
this court in WP(C) No. 5228/2013, titled: Jyoti Rani vs Guru Gobind
Singh Indraprastha University & Anr., which was allowed vide judgement
dated 30.09.2013.
2.1 The stand taken by the respondent no.1 university in Jyoti Rani's
case, for denying her admission, was two-fold. First, that the petitioner in
that case was not a permanent resident of Delhi, her family having migrated
from Punjab, and hence, was not entitled to admission as a SC candidate.
Second, the SC certificate was issued to the petitioner, in that case, based on
a SC certificate of her father.
2.1 The court rejected both pleas of respondent no.1 university. In fact, in
respect of the plea taken by respondent no.1 university that though the
nomenclature of the caste was the same, both in Delhi and in Punjab (in
Jyoti Rani's case the case in issue was Balmiki), they were two different
communities, the court in paragraph 7 of the judgement observed that, in
absence of such a plea and contention in the counter affidavit, the same
could not be considered. In addition to this, the court also observed that a
citizen, who has no access to the material, on the basis of which a caste/
community is notified as SC, in a State/ Union Territory, would never be in
a position to establish that a community bearing the same nomenclature in
two different States, were different communities. The court thus observed
that the onus in this behalf could not be laid on the citizen.
2.2 Thus, the court, having regard to the fact the Balmiki was notified as
SC in Delhi, and given the fact that the petitioner in that case had
permanently moved to Delhi, proceeded to grant relief to the petitioner.
3. In the captioned cases, there is no dispute that petitioners belong to a
caste which is notified as SC in NCT of Delhi. It is also not disputed that
the petitioners in each of these cases have obtained SC/ ST certificates from
the concerned authority in GNCTD.
3.1 Furthermore, it is also not disputed that the petitioners are permanent
residents of NCT of Delhi.
3.2 The only reason, as noticed above, the petitioners were denied
admission, was that the SC certificate obtained by them was issued on the
basis of SC/Tribe certificate issued to their parents from another State. The
relevant extract of the certificate, based on which this objection is taken, is
set out hereinbelow:
".... This certificate is issued on the basis of the Scheduled
Caste/ Tribe certificate issued to Shri/ Smt. / Kumari SUDESH
KUMAR Father of Sh./ Smt./ Kumari DIVYA CHOUDHARY
resident of VILL- SONEPAT AMBALA, STATE-
HARYANA who belongs to DHANAK caste/ tribe in the
State/ U.T. HARYANA issued by the TEHSIL-SONEPAT
vide their no. 1163 Dated: 11/9/2009....."
4. At the time when notice was issued in the captioned writ petitions,
interim orders were passed in their favour. Pursuant to the interim orders,
the petitioners, I am told, were given provisional admission by respondent
no.1 university. Pleadings in the matter, in the meanwhile, stood completed.
5. A perusal of both the writ petition and the replies would show that the
decision in Jyoti Rani's case is pending adjudication before the Division
Bench in LPA No. 934/2013.
5.1 It is, however, conceded before me by counsels for parties that no
interim order has been granted by the Division Bench.
6. Ms Anita Sahni, who appears for respondent no.1 university says that
for the academic year 2015-2016, the regime for admission has changed,
which, inter alia, provides that benefit of reservation would be extended to
all candidates who hold SC certificates issued by GNCTD, provided that the
caste indicated in the certificate so issued, is also shown in the list of SC as
specified in the Presidential Order 1951, as amended from time to time in
respect of Delhi.
6.1 She further submits that in so far as candidates, who have been issued
SC certificates by GNCTD on the basis of certificates issued to their parents
by other States, will also be given benefit of being SC candidates upon
submitting an affidavit on a Rs. 10 stamp paper in the proforma enclosed.
This regime is incorporated in an Academic Division Circular dated
18.06.2015, issued by respondent no.1 university. The relevant part of the
said circular is extracted hereinbelow for the sake of convenience :
"..... The University has received number of representation
from candidates seeking admission to various programme of
GGSIPU during 2015-16, that their claims for admission
under Delhi Schedule Category is not being entertained at the
designated centres on the pretext that the certificate issued by
competent authority of NCT of Delhi has a clause stating that
certificate is issued on basis of certificate parent issued by
competent authority of a State/ UT other than NCT of Delhi.
The University took a legal opinion on the matter in respect
and taking a considerable view in wider interest of candidates,
the competent authority of the University has approved, that
the benefits of reservation should be extended to all candidates
who hold scheduled castes certificate issued from Government
of National Capital Territory of Delhi and provided such a
caste is also enlisted in the list of Scheduled Caste as specified
in Presidential Order 1951as amended from time to time in
respect of Delhi subject to fulfilment of other conditions
specified therein. The candidates, who have been issued
scheduled caste certificate from GNCTD on the basis of
certificate of parents issued from other States, are also required
to submit an affidavit on Rs. 10/- stamp paper in the proforma
as enclosed....."
6.2 The proforma affidavit which the candidates have to file, requires
them to state the following:
"......... Affidavit to be Submitted
1. That I ____ S/o ____ aged ___ R/o ______ belong to ___
(Caste) which is notified as a Scheduled Caste in relation to
NCT Delhi as well as in relation to ___ (State), and in both
States the above said caste is from the same community. That
I have permanently shifted to NCT Delhi for all practical
purposes.
2. That I satisfy all the conditions for availing reservation as
per Presidential Order for reservation to Scheduled Caste
candidates in relation to NCT Delhi with respect to the
concerned State.
3. That I undertake that I shall not avail similar benefit of
reservation on the basis of Caste in any State other than NCT
Delhi.
Verification
Deponent
Verified at New Delhi on this ___ day of ___ (Month), 2015,
that the contents of above affidavit are true and correct to the
best of knowledge and belief and nothing material has been
concealed therefrom.
Deponent..."
6.3 Ms Sahni says that the aforementioned regime, however, applies only
from the academic year 2015-2016. The instant cases concerned academic
year 2014-2015.
7. In my view, in so far as this court is concerned, the issue raised in
these writ petitions appears to be clearly covered by the judgement of a Co-
ordinate Bench, in the case of, Jyoti Rani's case. The view taken therein
seems to have been now accepted by respondent no.1 university, as well,
albeit for academic year 2015-2016. Therefore, having regard to the fact
that the petitioners approached this court at the earliest, and thereafter, upon
having been granted provisional admission, have continued to prosecute
their studies, relief in these petitions would also have to be granted to them.
8. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The provisional
admission of the petitioners would be regularized by respondent no.1
university.
9. The writ petitions and the pending applications are, accordingly,
disposed of.
10. There shall, however, be no orders as to costs.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
NOVEMBER 23, 2015
kk
