Delhi High Court
Vidhanshi Kamalia & Anr vs University Of Delhi & Ors on 9 October, 2019
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 9th October, 2019
+ LPA 603/2019
VIDHANSHI KAMALIA & ANR ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh, Adv.
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Mr.
Hardik Rupal and Mr. Kaushik
Ghosh, Advs. for University of
Delhi
Mr. Preet Pal Singh and Mr.
Saurabh Sharma, Advs. for BCI
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 09.10.2019
D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
LPA No. 603/2019
1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original
petitioners whose WP(C) No. 8604/2019 was dismissed by the learned
Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 8th August, 2019.
2. Counsel appearing for the appellants (original petitioners) submits
that the appellants are seeking admission in LL.B. course with respondent
no. 2 university.
3. These appellants are "unreserved category candidates". Counsel
appearing for the appellants submits that the first list of admission was
published on 23rd July, 2019, which is at Annexure A-4 to the memo of
this LPA. Unreserved category candidate topper has got 325 marks and
the last candidate of unreserved category has scored 222 marks at the end
of counselling round. The respondent no. 2 university had shifted
reserved category candidates from first list to unreserved category
candidates of a second list. The appellant contends that this aspect of the
matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge
while deciding the writ petition, preferred by these appellants (original
petitioners) and hence, judgment and order dated 8th August, 2019
delivered by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 8604/2019 deserves
to be quashed and set aside.
4. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that once the
admission is already given to the reserved category candidates in their
quota, they cannot be shifted to unreserved category candidates in a
second round of counselling. Otherwise, the reservation for reserved
category candidates will exceed 50%. It is also submitted by the counsel
for appellants (original petitioners) that, had there been no shifting of
reserved category candidates to the unreserved category candidates in a
second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh lists of merit, published by
respondent no. 2 university, more number of unreserved category
candidates could have got admission and that this aspect of the matter has
not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, the judgment
and order dated 8th August, 2019 delivered by the learned Single Judge in
WP(C) No. 8604/2019 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. Counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 submits that after
publishing first list of admission of the students, the admission process is
never over. The admission process remains continued even after
publication of the first merit list. Similarly, the admission process still
continues even before publication of the second merit list. It goes up to
seventh merit list of both reserved and unreserved category candidates. It
is also submitted by the counsel for respondent no. 2 that if there are any
meritorious reserved category candidates, who have scored more marks
then general category candidates, they are bound to be shifted from
reserved category candidates to unreserved category candidates. Thus,
even after publication of the first list, the students who are in a reserved
category candidate, they are always to be shifted to unreserved category
candidates in a second list. Similarly, after publication of the second list
of admission of students, if there are candidates in reserved category
candidates and if they are found more meritorious than the unreserved
candidates who succeed in the third round of admission, they are always
to be shifted as unreserved category candidates. It is submitted by the
counsel for respondent no. 2 that shifting of the reserved category
candidates to unreserved category candidates is based upon a principle
that "meritorious reserved category candidates is equal to unreserved
category candidates". Thus, after publication of the first list of
admission, the admission process continues. In the facts of the present
case, admission process continues upto seventh merit list. Thus, the
shifting of reserved category candidates to the unreserved category
candidates will also continue upto seventh merit list. The counsel for the
respondent no.2 submits, that this aspect of the matter has been properly
appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding WP(C) No.
8604/2019 vide judgment and order dated 8th August, 2019 and hence,
this LPA may not be entertained by this Court.
6. Having heard learned counsel of both the sides and looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the appellants (original
petitioners) are seeking admission in the LL.B. course with respondent
no. 2 university for the academic years 2019-20 as unreserved category
candidates.
7. It further appears from the facts of the case that respondent no. 2
university has published first merit list for reserved category candidates
as well as for unreserved category candidates on 23rd July, 2019.
Thereafter, it appears from the facts of the case that out of unreserved
category candidates, few candidates had not taken admission for any
reason whatsoever and hence, second list is to be published. Similarly,
upto seventh merit list, the admission process has been continuing.
Admission process is not over, after publication of first merit list.
Admission process continues, till publication of last merit list.
8. The question which has arisen in the writ petition and in this
Letters Patent Appeal, is to the effect that whether reserved category
candidates, who are otherwise meritorious, can be shifted to unreserved
category candidates or not.
9. To the above question, our answer is in affirmative. No error has
been committed by the respondent no. 2 university in shifting reserved
category candidates to unreserved category candidates, if they are found
meritorious like the unreserved category candidates.
10. It further appears from the facts of the case that after the
publication of the first merit list, those candidates, who are in reserved
category, can always be shifted to unreserved category candidates in a
second merit list because in a second merit list, marks have gone down
for unreserved category candidates. Thus, whenever the merit of the
unreserved category candidates is going down, they are bound to be
shifting of meritorious reserved category candidates to the list of
unreserved category candidates. This aspect of the matter has been
properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding WP(C)
No. 8604/2019 vide judgment and order dated 8th August, 2019. We are
in full agreement with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge.
11. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dega Venkata
Harsha Vardhan and Ors. vs. Akula Ventaka Harshavardhan and Ors.
reported in 2018 (10) SCALE 618, in paragraph 8, which reads as under:
"8. The law is well settled that provisions
relating to reservation cannot work to the
disadvantage of a Meritorious Reserved
Candidate. A Meritorious Reserved Candidate
cannot be placed at a more disadvantageous
position than a less Meritorious Reserved
Category candidate. Candidates from amongst
the reserved category who would otherwise
come in the open merit list are therefore given
the choice of opting for reserved seats without
affecting the total number of reserved seats.
However, for the purpose of reservation, such a
candidate would continue to be treated as an
open category candidate and the seat as per his
entitlement as a candidate of the general quota
would go to a reserved candidate."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. In view of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, whenever the merit of unreserved category candidates is reducing
further & further, those who are meritorious reserved category
candidates, will always be shifted to the list of unreserved category
candidates. Hence, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and
the same is, therefore, dismissed.
CM APPL.44519/2019 (U/O-1,R-10 CPC)
1. In view of the order passed in the above appeal, this application is
disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
OCTOBER 09, 2019
r.bararia
