Delhi High Court
Saba Parveen vs Jamia Millia Islamia University ... on 3 December, 2018
$~58
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 3rd December, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 12906/2018 & CM Nos.50116/2018, 50180/2018
SABA PARVEEN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sheikh Imran, Adv.
versus
JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA UNIVERSITY AND ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Zeba Khair and Mr. Afzal
S. Shah, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
%
1. The petitioner passed her 12th standard examination from the
BIhar School Examination Board, Patna in 2014, securing 53.2%
marks. Following thereon, she applied, online, on 15th February,
2018, to the Jamia Millia Islamia University (Respondent No.1 herein,
and referred to, hereinafter, as "the University"), and applied for
admission to the course of Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.
Ed), to be pursued in the Department of Teacher Training and Non-
Elementary Education in the University.
2. It is not in dispute that the eligibility criterion, for admission to
the said diploma course, as mentioned in Annexure-1 to the
Prospectus issued by the University, for the academic session 2018-
19, read thus:
"Eligibility: (Senior Secondary School Certificate
Examination (Except Vocational Courses) with not less than
50% marks in the best 5-papers. Candidate can only apply
against the seats in the subject studied at +2 level".
3. Admit card was issued to the petitioner, on the basis whereof
the petitioner participated in the written test which was held on 24 th
April, 2018. In the merit list, which came to be published on 30th
May, 2018 as a consequence thereof, the petitioner was placed in the
waiting list.
4. Thereafter, on 11th July, 2018, the petitioner was called for
counselling and was given the pay-in slip requiring her to deposit the
admission fee, which, it is averred, was deposited by her on the very
same day.
5. Following thereupon, the petitioner joined the D.El.Ed Classes
on 17th July, 2018, and admittedly attended the classes till 24 th
October, 2018.
6. On 25th October, 2018, it appears that the petitioner was
informed, orally, that her admission to the D.EL.Ed course was
cancelled. She was not served with any cancellation letter or issued
any notice prior to the taking of the said decision.
7. Representations, by the petitioner to the university, protesting
against the cancellation of her admission, having elicited no
favourable response, the petitioner is before this Court in the present
proceedings.
8. Ms. Zeba Khair, learned counsel appearing for the University
has handed over, across the bar, a communication from the University
to her, dated 3rd December, 2018, which seems to have taken a stand
that the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled as she had not
secured 50% marks in the subject concerned (which would, in the
present case, be mathematics, being the discipline in which the
petitioner desired to pursue her D.El.Ed Course). While Ms. Khair
acknowledges that, quite frankly, that the stipulation, in the Admission
Prospectus of the University, only required the candidate to secure not
less than 50% marks in the best five papers given by her in her Senior
Secondary Examination, she submits that it was the practice of the
University to insist on 50% or more marks in the discipline to which
the candidate sought admission. She submits that, though in the
present case, the petitioner did secure more than 50% marks in her
best five papers in the Senior Secondary Certificate Examination, she
had failed to secure 50% marks in the mathematics paper and that it
was for this reason that her admission was cancelled.
9. A bare reading of the eligibility criterion, as contained in the
Admission Prospectus and as extracted hereinabove, indicate that the
submission is totally bereft of substance. All that is required is that
the candidate aspiring for admission to the D.El.Ed Course was
required to secure not less than 50% marks in the best five papers
given by her in the Senior Secondary School Examination. That the
petitioner did fulfil this requirement, is not in dispute. There is no
requirement, in the said Prospectus, of the candidate having to secure
50% marks in the paper relating to the discipline in which she, or he,
desired to pursue the Course in the University.
10. Needless to say, it is not open to the University to add, on its
own volition, a further condition, which is not only in excess of the
condition stipulated in the Admission Prospectus but is actually in
derogation thereof.
11. For the above reasons, the petitioner, having admittedly secured
not less than 50% marks in the best five papers given by her in her
Senior Secondary School Examination, was entitled to be admitted to
the D.EL.Ed Course in the University. The decision of the University
to cancel the admission given to the petitioner has, therefore,
necessarily to be set aside.
12. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in the above terms.
13. There shall be no order as to costs.
A copy of this judgment be given dasti under the signatures of
the Court Master.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
DECEMBER 03, 2018
kr
