Delhi High Court
Madhu Bala vs Union Of India And Anr. on 9 July, 2018
#29
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 09.07.2018
W.P.(C) 425/2018
MADHU BALA .... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suman Thakur and Mr. Tapan Garg, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC with Mr. Abhinav Tyagi, Advocate
.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, prays as follows:
"a. issue a direction, order or writ, including a writ
in the nature of mandamus against the Respondent,
and /or direct the respondents to allow the petitioner
to appear in counselling session and subsequently
give admission to the petitioner in the current
academic session without any further delay.
b. quash the admission process and issue direction to
the respondents to reschedule the counselling
process and consider the candidature of the
petitioner for the counselling session in accordance
with law."
2. The facts as are necessary for the adjudication of the present
writ petition are briefly encapsulated as under:
a. On 27.07.2017, the petitioner applied for writing the entrance
exam in two different trades, i.e. Sewing Technology and Surface
Ornamentation Technique, respectively, conducted by the Director
General of Training, Ministry of Skill Development and
Entrepreneurship (official respondent herein).
b. The petitioner received an admit card bearing registration
number-2017CISO14787 to write the exam for the Surface
Ornamentation Technique trade and accordingly, appeared in the exam
conducted by the official respondent on 13.08.2017.
c. The petitioner is stated to have obtained 60% marks in the
general category and secured the 31st rank.
d. The petitioner is aggrieved by the circumstance that the official
respondent did not invite her for any of the counselling sessions held
for admission to the Surface Ornamentation Technique trade,
although, students who had secured lower marks had been so invited.
e. It is an admitted position that the official respondent vide its e-
mail dated 24.09.2017, informed the petitioner that she had been
allotted Sewing Technology trade, instead of the Surface
Ornamentation Technique trade, as per her own request.
f. The official respondent further elaborated that the registration
number issued to her was a unique number and remains constant and
did not change, for either of the two options she had applied for. It
was, however, pointed out that if she had written the examination for
Surface Ornamentation Technique trade, the same was illegal, in view
of her own request.
3. A perusal of the record and in particular, Annexure R-4 annexed
to the official respondent's affidavit clearly and unequivocally reflects
that the petitioner was included in the list of candidates invited for
counselling in the second round for admission to Sewing Technology
trade.
4. However, the petitioner, admittedly, did not attend counselling
in relation to Sewing Technology trade at the relevant time and was
consequently denied admission.
5. Aggrieved by the act of denial of admission on behalf of the
official respondent, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to direct
the latter to permit her to appear for the counselling session and grant
admission to her in the academic session 2017-18.
6. Unfortunately, the situation that obtains today is that, not only
has the subject counselling long since concluded, but so has the
academic session 2017-18, to which the petitioner sought admission.
7. In this view of the matter, the present petition has been rendered
infructuous. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner,
however, states that the petitioner is entitled to damages on account of
the negligence of the official respondent.
8. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be
countenanced in the present proceeding, since the necessary facts in
relation to the grant of damages have neither been pleaded in the writ
petition nor has any such prayer been sought by the petitioner, therein.
9. In view of the foregoing, the present writ petition is disposed of
as having been infructuous, whilst reserving liberty to the petitioner to
initiate appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law, against the
official respondent in relation to her claim for damages.
10. The present petition is disposed of accordingly.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
(JUDGE)
JULY 09, 2018
as
