Farheen Jahan vs University Of Delhi And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 4277 Del

$~
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                       Date of Judgment: 21.8.2017

+       W.P.(C) 6695/2017, C.M. Nos.27878/2017 & 29455/2017
        FARHEEN JAHAN                             ..... Petitioner
                          Through     Mr.Akhil Sibal, Sr.Advocate with
                                      Mr.Javed Ali, Advocate.
                          versus


        UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS               ..... Respondents
                          Through     Mr.Mohinder J.S.Rupal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 Petitioner had applied for the LL.B.Entrance Examination in the OBC

category. Her OBC rank was 229; her combind rank was 1573. Counselling

dates were fixed between 18.7.2017 to 21.7.2017. In the first list the

petitioner was not able to attend the counseling because of unfortunate and

unforeseen circumstances. Her three month old daughter was not well at

Ghaziabad. The doctor had in fact advised her daughter for an in-house

admission. The petitioner was required to take complete care of her infant

baby. It was in these circumstances, she could not attend her counseling.

This happened while she was at her parental home at Ghaziabad. The

petitioner returned to her matrimonial home on 24.7.2017. On 25.7.2017 she

went to the University in the hope of getting permission to attend the

counseling session but the Students Help Desk informed her to come on the

following day and not to panic. She went to the University on 26.7.2017 but

she was not permitted to participate in second round of counseling. She was

however told that her case would be considered sympathetically; she was all

along hoping that she would be permitted to join the counseling as she had

scored well.

2 On 04.8.2017, these contention of the petitioner were noted. Learned

counsel appearing for respondent had taken time to obtain instructions qua

the status of the petitioner. The matter was adjourned to 09.8.2017. Again

on 09.8.2017 the matter was adjourned to 18.8.2017 when again the counsel

for respondent sought time to take instructions. Today it has been informed

to the Court that the respondent has taken out a third list of students and the

rank has gone up to 1573 and the student who had obtained rank of 1573

would be entitled to admission in the LL.B course of the Delhi University.

It is stated that the University has around 2000 seats.

3 This Court notes that with the consent of the parties since the parties

are ready with their respective submissions (without a written reply) it has

been agreed that the petition be disposed of.

4 Learned counsel for respondent admits that although the respondent

had taken time to take instructions as to whether a policy decision would be

applicable in the case of the petitioner but no such policy has been

formulated till now. Learned counsel for respondent points out that as per

the Information Bulletin (for admission to the LL.B course) it has been

clearly specified that the candidates are to report in person in the Office of

the Admission Committee along with all relevant documents; those

candidates who failed to appear in person on the specified date and time

would forfeit their claim for admission. Attention has been drawn to the

aforenoted rules on counseling which is contained in the Admission

Brochure. It reads as under:

"1.The candidates eligible for counseling will report in person at the office of Admission Committee on the specified date and time with all relevant documents in original along with photocopies and fees. At the time of reporting for counseling, the candidate shall produce the Admission Ticket and also the original certificates/marsksheet(s).

2.The candidates failing to appear in person on the specified date and time for counseling shall forfeit his/her claim for admission. All candidates including those whose results of the qualifying Degree examinations have not been declared must attend counseling as per the schedule."

5 Per contra learned counsel for petitioner points out that Annexure A-8

(page 72 of the paper book) which is the Notice qua admissions for the LL.B

course for the year 2016-17 (last academic year) had clearly specified that

those students who had got entrance ranks but could not visit the Faculty for

document verification could report to the Faculty for admission and

verification of the documents on date mentioned thereafter. Submission is

that in the last academic year the admission criteria for those students who

could not report on the date fixed for documents verification could report on

a subsequent date after the second admission list had been declared. The

same pattern should be made applicable in the instant case as well as the

petitioner has otherwise qualified on merits but at the cost of repetition was

unable to attend the counseling for the exceptional reasons as noted supra.

Her case should not be thrown out straightway.

6 The admission for the LL.B. Sessions 2016-17 vide which the criteria

had been relaxed and which has been pointed out by learned counsel for

petitioner reads herein as under:

"Information on the Vacant Seats after Second Admission List and the Number of applicants to report at Faculty of Law for document verification.

1.Those candidates, (a) who have got Entrance Ranks as given in "Table 1" below, But (b) who could not visit the Faculty of Law for document verification earlier or whose full list of documents were not verified untill 29th August 2016, shall report to the Faculty of Law (Old Building) for the Admission, subject to the verification of the eligibility criteria. They must report to the Centre between 15th -16th September 2016 (10:30 AM to 05:30 PM). It is understood these candidates must have got their information updated on the PG Admission Portal, regarding qualifying examination

marks, Centre preferences, and other relevant information (wherever applicable).

                                  Tabale 1
Category                                 Entrance Examination Ranks*
Unreserved (UR)                          1451-1639 (combined rank)
OBC                                      836-948 (category rank)
SC                                       482-564 (category rank)
ST                                       252-290 (category rank)

* The candidates who were supposed to report as the entrance examination ranks in the earlier announced lists (in any of the categories-UR, OBC, SC,ST), shall not be considered in this list.

7 Learned senior counsel for petitioner in support of his submission has

placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court reported

MANU/DE/9144/2006 Shri Kuldeep Singh Vs. State Council of Education

Research wherein that petitioner who could not attend the counseling

session because of illness (jaundice) had been permitted to attend the

counseling at a later date; an interim order had also enured in his favour.

Submission is that this judgment was not interfered with by the Division

Bench while disposing an LPA (LPA No.2152/2006) on 19.3.2007 (copy of

the order has been placed on record). Learned counsel for the petitioner has

also placed reliance upon another judgment of the Apex Court reported as

(2005) 9 SCC 779 Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE and Others to support

the same submission; argument being that a due which is otherwise available

to a party should not be disallowed only because of a mistake which has

been committed by the party which in that case was noted to be inadvertent

(para 9 of the said judgment).

8 Per contra learned counsel for respondent points out that the Apex

Court in the judgment reported as 2006(12) SCALE Minor Sunil Oraon T.R.

Guardian & Ors. Vs. C.B.S.E. & Ors. has held that it is not for the Courts to

interfere with the policies laid down by the statute and such a misplaced

sympathy projected by the Courts granting interim relief to such like

candidate is an ill-conceived sympathy which is a wrong exercise of the

judicial discretion by the court in. For the same proposition reliance has also

been placed upon a judgment of the Division Bench reported as

MANU/DE/2488/2009 Zini Chaurasia Vs. University of Delhi .

9       Arguments have been heard.


10      This Court is of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the

instant case, the case of the petitioner must succeed.

11 The petitioner is admittedly a candidate of the OBC category. She had

qualified rank 229 in the OBC category and had 1573 rank in the combined

list. Today the third list of candidates for the LL.B course has been

uploaded up to rank 1573 i.e. all students up to the rank of the petitioner

have been granted admission. The case of the petitioner is that she could not

attend her counseling on the specified date and time (between 18.7.2017 to

21.7.2017) for unforeseen reasons. The unforeseen reasons were that her 3

month old infant baby had been advised to be admitted to a hospital as she

was suffering from acute vomiting and diaherrea. The medical certificate of

the baby further evidences that this medical certificate has been issued by a

doctor at Ghaziabad i.e. the place where the petitioner was staying at that

point of time which was her parental home. Since the baby was just 3

months old and required in house-hospital admission (because of her medical

condition as she was suffering from acute diaherrea and bouts of vomiting),

the petitioner has necessarily to stay back in Ghaziabad. Counselling by that

time was over. When the petitioner returned to her matrimonial home on

24.07.2017 and on her search on the website of the University she learnt that

the counseling dates were over; her repeated visits to the University gave no

positive response; although she was repeatedly promised that her case would

be looked at sympathetically.

12 In the judgment of Kuldeep Singh (supra), a Bench of this Court had

noted the circumstances where a student of LL.B. course has been lost out

his chance to go for counseling as he was suffering from a bout of jaundice

and being an unforeseen circumstances and beyond the control of the

petitioner, he had been granted interim relief and he thereafter had been

allotted a seat in the LLB. Course. This judgment had been upheld by the

Division Bench. This judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the

instant case; the factual scenario is similar. The petitioner could not attend

counseling for reason beyond her control. This has already been noted supra.

13 The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent

would not apply to the facts of the instant case. The judgment of Minor

Sunil Oraon (supra) was a case where the eligibility conditions were the

criteria for consideration. In Zini Chaurasia (supra) what had weighed in

the mind of the Court was that another candidate had already got admission;

there were no other seats available, the admitted candidates admission could

not be upset. Ratio of the said judgments would be inapplicable to the instant

case.

14 This Court also notes that in the last academic year the cases of similar

persons had been considered on more sympathetic grounds and those

students who could not appear for document verification had thereafter been

permitted to appear on a later date.

15 In the instant case out of 2000 seats which are available in the Delhi

University 1573 have been filled up till date. The petitioner in the OBC

category has ranked 229 and in the general category has 1573 rank

cumulatively. Vacant seats are available with the University.

16 In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is

entitled to join next counseling which is fixed for today and tomorrow.

17 The petitioner having been granted permission to participate in the

counseling which is scheduled for today and tomorrow nothing else survives

in this petition. Petition disposed of in the above terms.

INDERMEET KAUR, J AUGUST 21, 2017 ndn