Delhi High Court
Siddhant Singh vs Hindu College And Ors. on 13 July, 2018
#44
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 13.07.2018
W.P.(C) 7050/2018
SIDDHANT SINGH ..... Petitioner
versus
HINDU COLLEGE AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Ms. Aakanksha Nehra and Mr. L.S. Anmol,
Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for R-1
Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal and Mr. Prang Newmai, Advocates for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
CM APPL.26764/2018 (Exemption)
Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.
The application is disposed of accordingly.
W.P.(C) 7050/2018 & CM APPL.26763/2018 (Stay)
1. The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India, instituted on behalf of the petitioner, seeks a direction in the nature of
mandamus to Hindu College, as well as, the University of Delhi, respondent
Nos. 1 & 3 herein respectively, to forthwith admit the petitioner to the B.A
(Honours) Political Science course (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject
course') for the academic session 2018-21. The petitioner in the present
petition prays as follows:-
"In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it is
humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
admit this petition, and direct as follows:
(a) Declare that the non-grant of admission to the
petitioner by the respondents No.1 and 2 (as sought
vide letters and email dated 06.07.2018) was illegal;
(b) Pass a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ
or order directing grant of admission to the petitioner
who was given the registration No.180274800 to the
course as stated hereinbelow:
(i) Against respondent No.2 for the course of B.A.
History (Hons.);
(ii) In the alternative to the prayer (b)(i)
hereinabove, against respondent No.2 for the
course of B.A. Programme;
(iii) In the alternative to the prayer (b)(ii)
hereinabove, against respondent No.1 for the
course of B.A. Political Science (Hons.);
(c) Declare that the omission of the respondent No.3 of
not having directed the respondent No.1 and 2 to
conduct the admissions as per the guidelines set out by
the respondent No.3 in its Bulletin (binding on the
Respondent No.1) was illegal; and
(d) Pass such other; writ(s)/Order(s)/ direction(s)/
declaration(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the
extra-ordinary circumstances of the present case."
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, on instructions,
limits the relief in the present petition to a direction to respondent Nos.1 and
3 to grant him admission to Hindu College, respondent No.1 herein, in the
subject course, for the academic year 2018-19, in view of the circumstance
that subsequent upon the revaluation of his marks, he meets the cut-off
percentage for the said course in Hindu College. Counsel for the petitioner
would urge that the present petition is covered on all fours by the decision of
this Bench in W.P.(C) 7024/2018, titled as 'Akshita Singh vs. Lady Shri
Ram College for Women & Ors.', decided on 11.07.2018.
3. In Akshita Singh (supra), this bench observed as follows :
"9. The legal position that emerges from a conspectus
of the afore-mentioned decisions is as follows:
a. Revaluation cannot be an exercise in futility.
b. The relevant cut-off date for admission of a student,
is the date stipulated therefor, by the University of
Delhi.
c. The assertion of the University of Delhi that if
admissions is continued indefinitely, due to delayed
revaluation of marks by CBSE, the same would
result in a delay in the commencement of the
academic session, is completely misplaced, in view
of the preceding sub-para.
d. Despite the circumstance that all the seats in the
subject course have been filled by a particular
college, the court can direct the University of Delhi
for creation of a supernumerary seat.
e. The assertion that a meritorious student has already
obtained admission to another college cannot
disentitle them from securing admission to a college
or subject of their own choice.
f. That the college in question, when directed to create
a supernumerary seat, is empowered to approach the
University Grants Commission for release of
additional funds.
XX XX XX
15. It is axiomatic that when it comes to admission of
students, the University of Delhi, in terms of the decisions
of this Court, is required to be responsive to the needs of
meritorious candidates, lest the latter are denied freedom
of choice, on account of delay occasioned by CBSE, for
no fault of the candidate. The interpretation of the
guideline issued by the University of Delhi must be liberal
enough to prevent any miscarriage of justice. Even
otherwise, the subject guideline is merely that, and cannot
have the force of law."
4. Notice.
5. Mr. Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of
respondent No.1. Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, learned counsel accepts notice
on behalf of respondent No.3.
6. With the consent of the parties, the present writ petition has been
heard finally and is disposed of with the following order.
7. The facts as are necessary for the adjudication of the present
proceedings are briefly encapsulated as follows:
a) The petitioner passed the Class XIIth examination conducted by
CBSE, having secured 95% marks initially.
b) The petitioner thereafter applied for admission, inter alia, to the
subject course in Hindu College, in the general category.
c) The petitioner had, being dissatisfied with the marks awarded to him
by the CBSE, applied for revaluation of his answer-sheets, in
accordance with the procedure prescribed by the CBSE in relation
thereto.
d) In the meantime, out of abundant caution, the petitioner sought
admission in the course of B.A(Programme) at Hindu College, in the
general category on 21.06.2018 till the time the revaluated result was
declared.
e) On 05.07.2018, the petitioner received the revaluated result from the
CBSE on e-mail. Upon revaluation, the petitioner's marks in English
core and History had been increased by the CBSE from 86 to 93, and
from 98 to 99, respectively, thereby increasing his percentage in the
'best of four' subjects from 95% to 97%.
f) Subsequent thereto, on 06.07.2018, the petitioner made a
representation to Hindu College requesting for a change of course
from B.A(Programme) to B.A(Hons.) Political Science.
g) In the meantime, Hindu College had on 19.06.2018, declared its first
cut-off list for the subject course, with 97% in the 'best of four'
subjects, as the cut-off, in the general category.
h) Subsequent upon the escalation of his marks as afore-stated, having
secured 97% in the 'best of four' subjects, the petitioner became
entitled for admission to the subject course, in terms of the first cut-off
list published by Hindu College.
i) However, Hindu College refused to grant him admission in view of
their assertion that, admission in the subject course, in the general
category, was closed on 27.06.2018.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would urge
that, in view of the circumstance that the cut-off date for admissions notified
by the University of Delhi is 14.07.2018; and the petitioner secured the
benchmark in the 'best of four' subjects, as required after the revaluation of
marks done by CBSE; and having applied for admission to the subject course
at Hindu College, followed by a representation to Hindu College for change
of course from B.A (Programme) to B.A(Hons.) Political Science, he is
therefore entitled to admission in the subject course ex debito justitiae.
9. The above contention is buttressed on behalf of the petitioner, inter
alia, by decisions of two Division Benches of this Court in LPA
No.574/2017 , tilted as 'Shri Ram College of Commerce vs. Sunny Goel &
Ors.' decided on 09.11.2014 and in W.P. (C) No. 4410/2010, titled as
'Jainidh Kaur (Through her next friend & Natural Guardian Sh. Sarabjeet
Singh) vs. ST. Stephens College and Ors.' decided on 28.04.2011.
10. In addition to the above, the decision of a learned Single Judge of this
Court in W.P.(C) 7455/2017, titled as 'Suhani Jain vs. Lady Shree Ram
College for Women & Anr.' decided on 25.08.2017 is also canvassed before
me.
11. Mr. Rupal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
No.3/Delhi University of Delhi states that in the event the petitioner has
applied for the subject course in Hindu College, within the period stipulated
by them for online registration, he will be granted admission to the subject
course at Hindu College, in accordance with law; and in terms of the
directions contained in the decision of this court in Akshita Singh (supra).
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Hindu College adopts the
submissions made on behalf of respondent No.3/University of Delhi.
13. In view of the foregoing, subject to verification, in accordance with
law, if the petitioner is found entitled for admission, in terms of the
directions issued in the decision rendered by this Court in Akshita Singh
(supra), he will be granted admission to B.A. (Hons.) Political Science
Course for the academic session 2018-19 in Hindu College forthwith, and for
this purpose, if required, the University of Delhi is directed to create a
supernumerary seat. Furthermore, Hindu College is empowered to approach
the University Grants Commission for release of additional funds qua
creation of the said supernumerary seat.
14. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. The
pending application also stands disposed of.
15. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Court
Master to counsel for the parties.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
(JUDGE)
JULY 13, 2018
dn
