Delhi High Court
Akhil Kumar Saini vs University Of Delhi & Ors. on 25 October, 2016
$~86, 87,88,89 & 90
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 25.10.2016
+ W.P.(C) 7722/2016 & CM No.31887/2016
AKHIL KUMAR SAINI ..... Petitioner
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in the case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Mohan, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. M.J.S. Rupal & Ms. Simranjeet, Adv.
+ W.P.(C) 7723/2016 & CM No.31892/2016
PARAG PARASHAR ..... Petitioner
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in the case:
For the Petitioner: Mr Tushar Rudra, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr M.J.S.Rupal & Ms.Simranjeet, Advocate
+ W.P.(C) 7866/2016 & CM No.32568/2016
SAGAR BATRA & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in the case:
For the Petitioner: Mr Bhaskar Subramanian, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr M.J.S.Rupal & Ms.Simranjeet, Advocate
W.P.(C) Nos. 7722/2016 & connected matters Page 1 of 5
+ W.P.(C) 7884/2016 & CM No.32632/2016
BHUPENER SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in the case:
For the Petitioner: Mr Sumit Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr M.J.S.Rupal & Ms.Simranjeet, Advocate
+ W.P.(C) 7969/2016 & CM No.33082/2016
SARABJEET SINGH ..... Petitioner
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in the case:
For the Petitioner: Mr Sameep Vijyavirgya, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr M.J.S.Rupal & Ms.Simranjeet, Advocate for Delhi
University.
Ms.Beenashaw N.Soni, Adv for R-3.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J (ORAL)
W.P.(C) Nos.7722/2016, 7723/2016, 7866/2016, 7884/2016 &
7969/2016
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the
petitioners have been admitted in Law Centre-II, they had opted for
either Campus Law Centre or Law Centre-I as the case may be and on
the date of the passing of the interim orders, as per their information
seats in the said Centres were available.
2. They, however, raised the following three concerns about Law
Centre - II:
i) As per their information, students in LC-I and LC-II are
shifted to evening classes in Atma Ram Sanatan Dharma
College in 2nd and 3rd year;
ii) There are no facilities of library in the campus for Law
Centre-II students; and
iii) There is no campus placement centre with regard to
students of Law Centre-I and Law Centre-II.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in case above
three issues are resolved, the petitioners would be satisfied with the
allocation of seats done by the University. However, in case any seat
falls vacant in Campus Law Centre or Law Centre - I and the
University proposes to fill up those seats, the petitioners would like to
be considered for the same.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in respect of
the first concern that the students of LC-II are shifted to evening
college in Atma Ram Sanatan Dharma College, her instructions are
after this year, no further evening classes will be held in Atma Ram
Sanatan Dharma College and no student of second and third year,
after this academic session would be shifted to the evening classes.
As the petitioners had taken admission in this academic session, they
would not be shifted to any evening classes in Atma Ram Sanatan
Dharma College.
5. With regard to second concern, she submits that the library
facility is being made available to students of Law Centre-II shortly
and till such time, the students are being permitted to use the library
facility of Campus Law Centre and Law Centre-I.
6. With regard to third concern of a campus placement cell, it is
contended that earlier the students who used to take admission in Law
Centre-II were mostly employed elsewhere and did not need any
campus placement, thus such a facility was not made available. In
case such a request is made to the University and the University finds
it feasible, then such a facility would be made available to students of
Law Centre-I and Law Centre-II at par with the facilities provided to
students of Campus Law Centre.
7. The statements are taken on record.
8. The writ petitions and all the pending applications are disposed
of. However, it is clarified that if any seat falls vacant in Campus Law
Centre or Law Centre-I and the University proposes to fill up the same
by transfer/migration from students in the other Centres, the
petitioners would be entitled to apply for the same. The University
shall consider such transfers/migrations in accordance with law and as
per merit of the students.
9. Copy of the order be given dasti to the parties under the
signature of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
OCTOBER 25, 2016
aj
