Delhi High Court
Muskaan Aggarwal vs University Of Delhi on 23 December, 2020
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 501/2019 & CM No.34979/2019 (for stay)
MUSKAAN AGGARWAL ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Naveen Kumar Jain and Mr.
Tanuja Singh, Advs.
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
ORDER
% 23.12.2020
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
1. The appeal impugns the order dated 9th July, 2019 of dismissal of
W.P.(C) No.6896/2019 preferred by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was a candidate for admission to the undergraduate
course of the respondent Delhi University (DU) for the academic session
2019-2020 and was desirous of securing admission in Bachelor of Arts (BA)
(Honours) Political Science stream. The respondent DU, in the Bulletin of
Information earlier published for admission to undergraduate courses for the
academic session 2019-2020 had inter alia provided that for admission to
BA (Honours) Political Science stream, out of the marks of the best three
subjects in the result of the Central Board of Secondary Examination
(CBSE), one must be the concerned with the subject in which admission is
sought, failing which a deduction of 1% will be imposed on the aggregate of
marks in the best four subjects. However subsequently, vide a corrigendum
dated 17th June, 2019 tiled "Corrigendum: eligibility criteria for UG
Admissions 2019-20" issued by the respondent DU, the aforesaid deduction
of 1% was increased to 2.5%.
3. The writ petition from which this appeal arises was filed, contending
that such change effected by the respondent DU was bad and illegal and
that, had the change not been effected, the appellant would have secured
admission to a College in North Campus but with the change in the rule,
appellant was compelled to secure admission in a College in South Campus
of respondent DU.
4. The respondent DU opposed the petition filed by the appellant,
pleading that the change was effected, not by the respondent DU on its own
but for the reason of being directed by this Court in Charanpal Singh Bagri
Vs. University of Delhi & Ors. (2019) 261 DLT (CN 30) 30. It was
informed that though in the admission procedure for the previous academic
session 2018-2019, the deduction provided was of 2.5% but for admission
for the academic session 2019-2020, the same was reduced to 1% and some
other changes were also made in the admission procedure. The said changes
made in the admission procedure in the year 2019-20 were impugned before
this Court in Charanpal Singh Bagri (supra) and in other connected
petitions, all of which were decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide
judgment dated 14th June, 2019, where it was held that the changes so
effected were without following the proper procedure i.e. without consulting
the Academic Council of the respondent DU and thus were illegal and the
respondent DU was directed to immediately issue a corrigendum declaring
that the admissions for the undergraduate course in the academic session
2019-2020 would be on the same parameters as in the previous academic
session 2018-2019.
5. The Single Judge, in the impugned judgment who incidentally was
also the Presiding Judge in the Division Bench which had pronounced
judgment in Charanpal Singh Bagri (supra), held that since the change in
criteria for admission which was impugned in the writ petition filed by the
appellant was in pursuance to a judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court, there was no illegality in the change effected and axiomatically
dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved therefrom, this appeal has been
preferred and though is stated to have been preferred immediately after the
pronouncement of the impugned judgment, has been pending before the
Division Bench for some time.
6. We have at the outset, enquired from the counsel for the appellant,
how the appellant, even if found entitled to the relief, can be granted the
relief now inasmuch as the academic session 2019-2020 must have already
begun and substantially over.
7. The counsel for the respondent DU, on enquiry states that the Third
Semester Examination of the academic session 2019-2020 are going on and
the appellant cannot be granted admission at this stage.
8. The counsel for the appellant however contends that since the
appellant had filed the writ petition against order wherein this appeal arises,
immediately, without any delay and has also been pursuing this appeal
diligently, the appellant cannot be denied the relief for the reason of delays
in adjudication. Alternatively, it is contended that the appellant, in the next
academic session 2020-21, be ordered to be admitted in BA (Honours)
Political Science stream in a College in North Campus, on the basis of the
eligibility of the appellant in the previous year. Reliance is placed on a
judgment of another Single Judge of this Court in Sanchi Dilavari vs.
University of Delhi 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10879 (against which LPA
750/2019 is pending) and on some other judgments, to contend that the
provision for deduction of 2.5% marks for the reason of not having the
subject at the CBSE stage, in which admission is sought in the
undergraduate course, has been held to be bad.
9. We have however enquired from the counsel for the appellant,
whether not, in the present case, grant of any relief to the appellant, which
though is not possible without holding the corrigendum issued by the
respondent DU to be bad, would necessarily require quashing/setting aside
of the said corrigendum and which corrigendum in turn has been issued by
the respondent DU in compliance of the direction of a Division Bench of
this Court in Charanpal Singh Bagri (supra).
10. The counsel for the respondent DU, on enquiry, states that the
judgment in Charanpal Singh Bagri (supra) has not been appealed and has
attained finality.
11. We have drawn the attention of the counsel for the appellant to our
recent judgment in Chaman Giri vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del
1592, where we have held that if the Courts start granting reliefs
diametrically opposite or contrary to the reliefs granted in other petitions
before the Court, the same would result in a judicial chaos. The remedy of
the appellant in the present case, if not earlier knowing of the dicta in
Charanpal Singh Bagri (supra), was, to immediately on the respondent DU
citing Charanpal Singh Bagri (supra)before the Single Judge, prefer
remedy, if any available against Charanpal Singh Bagri (supra). The
appellant/writ petitioner however not realising the correct status in law, has
continued to pursue a wrong remedy and thus has herself to blame and is not
entitled to any relief in equity as well.
12. The counsel for the appellant states that his instructing counsel has
not briefed him about the dicta in Chaman Giri (supra).
13. The instructing counsels ordinarily are required to brief only on facts
and it is the counsel being briefed who is supposed to contribute qua the
legal position.
14. The counsel for the appellant then seeks passover/adjournment to
study Chaman Giri (supra).
15. However considering that the appeal in any case, for the reason earlier
stated, has to be necessarily dismissed inasmuch as the relief claimed, owing
to passage of time, cannot be granted, we are of the view that no purpose
will be served in keeping this petition pending any further.
16. As far as the contention of the counsel for the appellant of granting
the relief to the appellant of admission in the academic session 2020-2021,
when it is stated that the admission criteria has again been reverted to
deduction of 1% of the marks only, is concerned, it is settled that for
securing admission in the academic session 2020-2021, the appellant has to
compete with others securing admission in the said year and cannot block
one seat of the academic session 2020-2021, depriving the admission
seekers of that year therefrom.
17. There is no merit in the appeal.
18. Dismissed.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
ASHA MENON, J.
DECEMBER 23, 2020/'bs'..
