Delhi High Court
Aditi Sharma vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 4 October, 2018
#80
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 4th October, 2018
W.P.(C) 10422/2018
ADITI SHARMA ..... Petitioner
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms. Deepali Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Ms. Ekta Sikri and Ms. Jasbir Bidhuri, Advocates for
respondent No. 2/GGSIPU.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
CM No. 40614/2018 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 10422/2018
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has
been instituted on behalf of a student, praying as follows:-
"1. To declare the selection/counseling procedure
held for admission to LL.M Programme for the session
2018-2019 at GGSIPU Delhi as arbitrary,
discriminatory, improper, unjustified and hence
illegal.
2. To Quash the selection/shortlisting of students
as undertaken by the GGSIPU Delhi on 10.07.2018
and 14.08.2018 for admission to LL.M. Regular
Programme for the session 2018-2019;
3. Direct the respondent GGSIPU Delhi to
consider and give admission to the petitioner as per
her merit position in the common admission test
conducted for admission to LL.M. Programme for the
session 2018-2019.
4. Pass any other and further order which the
Hon'ble High Court may deem fit to pass."
2. The facts as are necessary for the adjudication of the present
proceedings are elaborated as hereunder:
(i) The petitioner having successfully passed the LL.B. Degree
Course on 21st April, 2018, wrote the Entrance Examination, seeking
admission in the LL.M. Regular Course (hereinafter referred to as 'the
subject course'), in the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
(hereinafter referred to as 'the GGSIPU').
(ii) In the Common Admission Test, the results of which were
declared on 19th May, 2018, the petitioner being a General Category
candidate secured the rank of 251 in the Merit List. Although, the
petitioner participated in the first round of counseling on 14th June,
2018, as notified by the GGSIPU on its website, she was not granted
admission, on account of the circumstance that, the candidate last
selected in that round of counseling, in the General Category, was
ranked 137.
(iii) The second round of counseling was scheduled to be conducted
on 10th July, 2018, as duly notified by the GGSIPU, on its website on
6th July, 2018.
(iv) Admittedly, the petitioner did not present herself on the notified
date and time for the said counseling.
(v) Further, it is the petitioner's own case that, she did not
participate in the supplementary counseling conducted on 14th August,
2018.
3. It is an admitted position that, the process of counseling has
culminated with the admissions granted in pursuance to the supplementary
round of counseling held on 14th August, 2018; and not only have the classes
commenced for the subject course, but the internal examination for the Ist
Semester has also been conducted.
4. It is, at this belated stage that, the present proceeding have been
instituted by the petitioner, seeking a declaration that, the counseling
procedure held for admission to the subject course for the academic session
2018-2019, be declared as arbitrary and discriminatory.
5. It is further prayed that, the selection/shortlisting of students
undertaken by the GGSIPU on 10th July, 2018 and 14th August, 2018, should
be set aside and quashed.
6. Lastly, it has been prayed that, the GGSIPU be directed to consider
and grant admission to the petitioner, as per her merit, in the common
admission test.
7. The above relief is predicated on the petitioner's assertion that, she
could not attend the second round of counseling, conducted by the GGSIPU
on 10th July, 2018, on account of the mis-information given to her verbally,
at the time of first round of counseling, in that behalf by the official
respondent.
8. It is further argued that, the petitioner was unable to appear in person
on the notified date and time of counseling, for the supplementary
counseling held on 14th August, 2018, in view of her indisposition.
8. Per contra, Ms. Ekta Sikri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
GGSIPU would assert that, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner
are untenable, by reason of the fact that, the notification issued on 6th July,
2018, on their website categorically provided that, the second round of
counseling would be held on 10th July, 2018. In this behalf, it is further
asserted that, the petitioner had participated in the first round of counseling
on 14th June, 2018, evidently on the basis of the notification issued by
GGSIPU on their website. In other words, it is urged that, it is not open to
the petitioner to state that, she could not appear in the second round of
counseling, on account of some mis-information verbally furnished to her, at
the time of first counseling, when the actual date of the second round of
counseling i.e. 10th July, 2018, was duly notified on their website.
9. It is lastly argued that, in terms of the extant notification and in
particular Clause 8(a) (d) thereof, that a candidate, who fails to appear in
person, on the notified date and time for counseling, forfeits her claim for the
seat which may have been offered to her, had she remained present on her
turn.
10. Ms. Ekta Sikri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the GGSIPU
would, therefore, state that, in view of the admitted circumstance that, the
petitioner did not present herself in person, on the dates and times notified
for the second and the supplementary round of counseling, the latter has, as a
result thereof, forfeited her right to claim a seat; and her belated attempt to
secure admission is consequently impermissible.
11. Ms. Deepali Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner would then urge that, the latter was entitled to admission ex debito
justitiae, as per her merit alone, in the common admission test conducted for
admission to the subject course for the academic session 2018-2019.
12. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that, the admission to an
educational institution must be granted on merit alone. To disentitle a
meritorious student based on a formalistic and actualistic approach is unjust
and subversive for the purpose of the exercise. Having said that, however, it
is equally well settled that, the procedure scheduled for regulating the grant
of admissions to educational institutions cannot be emasculated or interfered
with, by the issuance of a writ of mandamus, unless the same has prejudiced
a student for no fault on his/her part.
13. In the present case, it is observed that, not only is the counseling for
the subject course long since over, but admissions have also been finally
granted and closed pursuant thereto, in the month of August, 2018.
Furthermore, the internal examinations for the said course have already been
conducted. In that view of the matter, the present proceeding has been
rendered infructuous at the time of its institution, by events that have
transpired, strictly in consonance with the academic calendar published by
the official respondent. It must also be observed that, although, it is the
petitioner's case that, she was prevented by circumstances beyond her
control, from participating in the second round of counseling on 10th July,
2018 and the supplementary counseling held on 14th August, 2018, the same
is untenable, on account of the circumstance that, she has no one else to
blame but herself for her non-appearance, at the time and date, when the said
rounds of counseling were held, as duly notified on GGSIPU's website.
14. It is further relevant to observe that, a candidate, who has failed to
participate in person for counseling cannot subsequently stake a claim for a
seat in the subject course, after the same has been allotted to another
meritorious candidate, in accordance with the procedure established by the
official respondent.
15. Resultantly, in my considered view, in the facts and circumstances of
the present case, and without undermining the academic credentials of the
petitioner, this Court is not persuaded to issue a mandamus to the official
respondent to grant admission to the petitioner. Further, granting the prayers
in relation to a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the
selection/shortlisting of students, would be a travesty of justice to the
students, who have already been granted admission to the subject course.
The petitioner, as a result, of her failure to comply with the essential pre-
conditions of grant of admission, is precluded from seeking such a relief.
16. In view of the facts and circumstances as aforestated, the present
petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
(JUDGE)
OCTOBER 04, 2018
RS
