Delhi High Court
Hunar Gandhi vs University Of Delhi & Anr. on 8 January, 2019
$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 8th January, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 86/2019
HUNAR GANDHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Ila Haldia, Adv.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal and
Ms. Slomita Rai, Advs. for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
% J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. Admissions, to the Master of Business Administration (MBA)
Course in Colleges under the Delhi University (Respondent No.1
herein) are subject to passing of the Common Admission Test
(commonly known as the "CAT"). For the academic session starting
2019, the CAT was scheduled to be held on 25th November, 2018.
The petitioner, who was desirous of pursuing his MBA, applied for the
CAT, 2018 which, it may be reiterated, constitutes the basis for
admission to the MBA Course conducted by the Faculty of
Management Studies (FMS) under the Delhi University.
2. Applications, for registration for the MBA programme
conducted by the Respondent No. 1 through the FMS were,
admittedly, invited in October, 2018. The Information Bulletin, issued
by the University for the said purpose, fixed 8 th October, 2018 as the
opening date for registration and 20th November, 2018, as the last date
for registration. The petitioner submits, in the writ petition, that the
fixing of the last date for registration of the MBA Course, as 20 th
November, 2018, prior to the date of the scheduled CAT Examination,
which was 25th November, 2018, was arbitrary. It is also emphasised,
in this regard, that the applicants are required to pay an application fee
of ₹ 1,000/- per programme, in addition to ₹ 1,900/- required to be
paid separately for registration for the qualifying examination.
3. The petitioner has also highlighted, in the writ petition, the fees
which are payable for other similar courses. In the opinion of this
Court, that is not an aspect which can be examined in writ jurisdiction;
neither would this Court would be inclined to interfere with the
quantum of fees fixed for admission to various professional courses,
unless they are expropriatory in nature.
4. It is averred, in the writ petition, that, as the petitioner was
unsure of his performance in the CAT Examination, he did not choose
to apply for the MBA Programme conducted by the University of
Delhi. As it transpired, however, the result of the CAT-2018, which
was declared on 5th January, 2019 disclosed that the petitioner had
scored 99.69 percentile and was among the top 750 candidates.
5. This, apparently, emboldened the petitioner to move the present
writ petition, challenging, at this stage, the decision, communicated as
far as back in October, 2018, fixing the last date for registration for
the MBA Course conducted by the University, which took place on
20th November, 2018. The contention of the petitioner is that the
University ought to have fixed the last date for registration to the
MBA Course after the date of declaration of the results of the CAT
Examination, i.e. after January, 2019.
6. Be it noted, that at the cost of repetition, that, in the
interregnum, the date of 20th November, 2018, has gone by, and the
petitioner has not applied for admission to the MBA Programme
conducted by the University.
7. A similar controversy had engaged the attention of this Court in
W.P.(C) 9454/2014 (Kshitiz Diwakar v. Delhi University & Anr.)
which stands decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide a
judgment dated 15th April, 2015 reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Del
8842. In the said judgment, this Court has, while acknowledging the
merit, of the contention of the petitioner, that the terminus a quo for
the registration of the MBA ought to be after the date of the
declaration of the CAT result, and does not issue any mandamus in
this regard, merely limiting its findings thereon to the following
observations contained in paras 8 and 9 of the report:
"8. In view of the above, no directions can be issued to
the respondent no.2 to allow the petitioner to complete all
requirements and formalities for joining the programme.
However, the issue pointed out by the petitioner is
relevant. If the scores obtained by candidates in the CAT
examination are to be considered and form a substantial
basis for fixing the order of merit for granting admission
to the students, it would stand to reason that the last date
for applying be fixed after date for declaration of CAT
results. This would enable the candidates to take an
informed decision whether to apply for admission to
respondent no. 2. The grievance that the candidates are
compelled to apply to a large number of institutions in
vain appears justified. The learned counsel for the
respondents has been unable to provide any justifiable
reason why the last date for registration should be fixed
prior to declaration of CAT results. Surely, the exercise
of distributing Admission brochures and receiving
registrations cannot be made a revenue generating
exercise. The parties further inform that last year, the last
date for receiving applications/online applications was
fixed after the declaration of CAT results.
9. In the given circumstances, the petition and the
application are disposed of by directing the respondents
to consider the aforesaid aspect and take the appropriate
decision with respect to the time schedule for future
admissions."
8. Even while entering the following observations, this Court
acknowledged its inability to grant any relief to the petitioner in
Kshitiz Diwakar (supra) for two reasons, i.e. firstly, that he had not
applied for admission and, therefore, his request for being considered
and admitted to the MBA Programme could not be granted at that
stage, as grant of such relief would amount to relaxing the schedule
for registration which already stood closed and, secondly, that
interference with the admission process, after it stood concluded,
would unfairly prejudice the candidates who had applied in time as
well as who had not done so and were not before this Court. Paras 6
and 7 of the report, may for this purpose be usefully reproduced as
under :
"6. It is not disputed that the petitioner had not applied
for admission and, therefore, the petitioner's request for
being admitted to the programme cannot be acceded to.
Granting the petitioner's request for admission would
amount to relaxing the schedule for registration, which
has already closed. In my view, no such direction is
warranted. The time schedule provided in the admission
brochure needs to be strictly adhered to and an
admission on the belated application i.e. after the expiry
of last date must not be granted. The Himachal Pradesh
High Court in Gunjan Kapoor v. State of Himachal
Pradesh and Ors.: Civil Writ Petition No. 515 of 1998,
decided on 10.11.1998, quashed the admission of a
candidate whose application was entertained and
accepted by the college after the expiry of last date and
even without the Gradation Certificate for sportsmen as
prescribed under paragraph 3.1(g) of Admission
Brochure of the said College. The Court held as under:-
"24. ... We are, therefore, of the opinion that when
the date, time and stipulation of enclosing the
documents with the application form have been
specified in the Advertisement and also in the
Information Brochure, it must be strictly adhered to
as otherwise it leads to uncertainty, unending
process, anomaly and deprivation of equality
clause and further it widens the competition
amongst the candidates seeking admission into
professional courses who had not complied with
the stipulated essential conditions. It is also
difficult to determine upto what period the time-
limit can be extended and if such power is to be
exercised, by the Committee or the College
Authority, it will lead to arbitrariness. We hope and
expect that in future the concerned authorities shall
withdraw their hands from encouraging the
practice of entertaining the applications whether
complete or incomplete after the expiry of the date
stipulated in the Admission Notice and Admission
Brochure or extending the dates to the candidates
for submitting their documents after the receipt of
incomplete application within time."
7. I am also inclined to accept the respondent's
contention that interfering with the admission process at
this stage would unfairly prejudice the candidates who
had applied in time as well as those who had missed
applying within time and are not before this court."
(Emphasis Supplied)
9. The same fate, in my view would have to visit the petitioner.
While the grievance of the petitioner, regarding the fixing of the last
date for registration of the MBA Programme subsequent to the
declaration of the CAT result may be justified as observed by the
Coordinate Bench in Kshitiz Diwakar (supra), it is not possible to
grant any relief to the petitioner, in view of the fact that the petitioner
did not choose to register for the MBA Course, the last date for which
has gone by, and at this stage, when the admission process stands
closed, it is not possible to direct the respondents to consider the case
of the petitioner for registration to the MBA Course. Grant of any
such direction, as the judgment in Kshitiz Diwakar (supra) has
correctly observed, would amount to a relaxation of the admission
schedule and would also work to the prejudice of the other candidates
who, owing to the last date for registration having passed by, have lost
on the opportunity to register for the Course.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, it is not possible to grant any relief to
the petitioner.
11. At the same time, I would reiterate the observations entered by
the Coordinate Bench in paras 8 and 9 of the judgment in Kshitiz
Diwakar (supra). The University of Delhi is directed to take a
decision, if not already taken, on the aspects underscrored in paras 8
and 9 of the judgment in Kshitiz Diwakar (supra) within a period of
four weeks from today.
12. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition stands
dismissed with no orders as to costs.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
JANUARY 08, 2019/kr
