Shaswita vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ...
2020 Latest Caselaw 202 Del

$~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     W.P. (C) 12109/2019

                                                     Date of decision: 14.01.2020

      SHASWITA                                                    ..... Petitioner
                            Through      Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate along
                                         with petitioner-in-person.

                            versus

      GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY
                                                  ..... Respondent
                   Through  Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri, Advocate.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):

Preface:-
1.    The grievance of the petitioner is that even though she was allotted a
seat in the University School of Environment Management, Dwarka, in
Master of Science (Biodiversity and Conservation) Branch, she has not been
granted admission in the said course by the respondent University i.e. Guru
Gobind      Singh     Indraprastha   University      (hereafter   referred   to   as
"University").
Background

:-

2. The facts and assertions which are required to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are, broadly, the following: 2.1 The petitioner sat for the Common Entrance Test (CET) and was declared successful in her endeavour. In the CET, the petitioner was ranked

52. 2.2 The petitioner, who was interested in seeking admission with the University, took the next step towards this end and, as required, deposited Rs.1,000/- for the purposes of counselling.

2.3 On 23.07.2019, the petitioner, as instructed, filled up by her choices qua institutes, in which, she sought admission.

2.4 The petitioner was allotted a seat on 03.08.2019. This exercise was carried out by the petitioner online by freezing the said seat on the University's web-portal.

2.5 As required, the petitioner, thereupon, paid the part-academic fee amounting to Rs. 40,000/- to the University.

2.6 The petitioner, thus, obtained admission in the University School of Environment Management in the Master of Science (Biodiversity Conservation) course; as alluded to hereinabove. 2.7 This aspect emerges upon a perusal of provisional offer letter (in short "POL") dated 11.08.2019.

3. It is the petitioner's case that, in the interregnum, her original documents were verified by the concerned officials in the University on 08.08.2019, pursuant to which she was instructed to deposit a further sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards balance academic fee.

3.1 The petitioner claims that, as instructed, on 09.08.2019, she deposited Rs. 30,000/- towards balance academic fee.

3.2 The petitioner claims that she was informed, albeit, after she had deposited Rs. 30,000/- that while filing her application with the University she had adverted to an incorrect region.

3.3 The petitioner, admittedly, had applied qua the Delhi-region whereas

she had completed her graduation from an institute which was located outside the National Capital Territory of Delhi ("NCTD").

4. There is no dispute that 85 per cent of the seats in the University were reserved for those candidates who had graduated from Colleges/Institutes which were located in Delhi whereas the balance 15 percent of the seats were reserved for those candidates who had graduated from Colleges/Institutes which were located outside Delhi. 4.1 Given this position, the petitioner says she was advised, on 13.08.2019, to file an application with the University for correcting the error which, inadvertently, had crept in her application.

5. There is no dispute that the petitioner filed an application in that behalf with the University whereupon she was allowed to make the necessary correction.

5.1 In other words, the fact that the petitioner had graduated from an institute/college outside Delhi was corrected in her original application.

6. As a matter of fact, via email dated 14.08.2019, the University accepted this position and, accordingly, permitted the petitioner to participate in the second round of the spot counselling (i.e. the 6th round). 6.1 The email dated 14.08.2019 is brief and, therefore, the relevant part of this email is extracted hereafter:

"The following candidates have been allotted seat in Spot Round of Counselling .with Wrong region. The allotted seats of the following candidates have been cancelled and their region has been changed. The following candidates may be allowed in Spot Round 2. May please like to check the details before the allotment of seats in Spot Round 02.

1. JAY KASANA (BCOM (H)) (CET Roll No- 9606727) - BCOM

2. SAKSHAM BHARADWAJ (CET Roll No-9608594) - BCOM

3. AVIRAL JAIN (CET Roll No. 9527644) - BBA

4. SUMER SINGH (CET Roll No. 9527742) - BBA

5. SHASWITA (CET Roll no. 1230024) - MSC (BCN)

Regards Kushpreet Singh Ghhatwal Assistant Registrar Admissions Branch, GGSIPU"

[Emphasis is mine]

7. Although the petitioner was allowed to participate in the second round of the spot counselling, which was, effectively the 6th round of counselling, she was not granted admission.

8. I am informed by Mr. Bidhuri that in the first round of spot counselling (i.e. the 5th round) the break-up of the seats was as follows:

Total number of seats available in 8 the first round of spot counselling

Candidates who reported for 1 admission

8.1 Likewise, in the second round of spot counselling (i.e. the 6th round) Mr. Bidhuri informs me that the break-up of seats was as follows:

      Candidates       who    reported     for 2
      admission

8.2 Therefore, according to Mr. Bidhuri, at present, five (5) seats are available.

8.3 Mr. Bidhuri also informs me that out of the five (5) seats available two (2) are reserved for the Economically Weaker Section (in short "EWS") Category and the remaining three (3) seats fall in the General Category. 8.4 Pertinently, Mr. Bidhuri does not dispute the fact that Clause 11.11 of the "Admission Brochure for Academic Session 2019-20 (Part-A)" [hereafter referred to as "Admission Brochure"] provides that in the spot counselling rounds, seats which are not filled up till that stage are to be treated as "unreserved".

8.5 Therefore, if one were to take this condition given in the Admission Brochure into consideration, then all the five (5) seats are available for admission irrespective of the candidates' category. 8.6 Thus, even if I were to exclude two (2) seats which are earmarked for the EWS Category, there are, at present, three (3) seats available in the General Category.

9. Given these facts, counsel for the petitioner says that even though a mistake was made by the petitioner in the initial stage inasmuch as she failed to advert to the correct region in her application, that error ought to have been corrected in the ordinary course, on 08.08.2019, when her original documents were verified by the concerned officials in the University. 9.1 Learned counsel goes on to say that after verification of documents on 08.08.2019, the petitioner was allowed to deposit the balance-academic fee of Rs. 30,000/- on 09.08.2019.

9.2 It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that, thereafter, based on the application filed by the petitioner on 13.08.2019 - she was

allowed to carry out the correction in the original application form and, thereupon, permitted to participate in the second round of spot counselling i.e. the 6th round.

9.3 According to the counsel for the petitioner, the University, if not fully, at least, partially contributed perpetuation of the error in the petitioner's application form till 13.08.2019, when, the correction could have been carried out much earlier.

9.4 De hors this contention, counsel for the petitioner says that, in any case, since in the spot rounds of counselling, seat-reservation, even according to the Admission Brochure is not to be made, the petitioner ought to be granted admission against any one of the three (3) seats which are, presently, lying vacant.

10. On the other hand, Mr. Bidhuri says that since the mistake has been made by the petitioner, no relief can be granted to her. 10.1 Mr. Bidhuri also submits that the judgement of a Single Bench of this Court dated 16.04.2015, passed in W.P. (C) No. 3043/2014, titled Dr. Sandeep Dhama vs. The State & Anr., stands in the way of the petitioner. Analysis and Reasons:-

11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, according to me, what clearly emerges and qua which there can be no dispute is as follows:

(i) The petitioner, admittedly, had entered the wrong region in her application form. Instead of applying under outside-Delhi region she applied under Delhi-region.

(ii) The petitioner's documents were, concededly, examined by the concerned officials in the University on 08.08.2019.

(ii)(a) Mr. Bidhuri, cannot but agree, that a perusal of the documents ought to have shown that the petitioner had graduated from a college/institute which did not fall within the NCTD. To be noted, the petitioner obtained her graduation degree from Amity University, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

(iii) Upon verification of petitioner's original documents on 08.08.2019, she was allowed to deposit the balance-academic fee of Rs. 30,000/- on 09.08.2019.

(iv) The petitioner was also allowed to make a course correction, pursuant to an application being filed on 13.08.2019, with regard to the error in her application as to the region from where she had graduated.

(v) Based on the correction carried out, the petitioner was permitted to participate in the second round of spot counselling i.e. the 6th round.

(vi) Lastly, Clause 11.11 of the Admission Brochure, even according to Mr. Bidhuri, provides that in the spot counselling rounds, all seats are considered as "unreserved".

12. Given the aforesaid circumstances, according to me, the petitioner is right that if not fully, the concerned officials in the University contributed to perpetuation of the error. Admittedly, after the petitioner's documents were verified on 08.08.2019, which would have, in the ordinary course, thrown up the error concerning the region, the balance-academic fee amounting to Rs. 30,000/- was collected by the University. To date, the University has not refunded the amount. As a matter of fact, the University allowed the petitioner not only to make the correction on 14.08.2019, but also permitted her to participate in the second round of spot counselling (i.e. the 6th round). Even as per the University, all seats are to be treated as unreserved in the spot rounds of counselling.

12.1 Mr. Bidhuri has emphasized that the object of the spot counselling rounds is to fill up as many seats as possible so that the seats are not wasted.

13. This being the situation, I find no difficulty in directing that the petitioner should be granted admission in the University School of Environment Management, Dwarka, in Master of Science (Biodiversity and Conservation) branch against one of the three (3) seats which are, at present, lying vacant.

14. Before I conclude, I may only note that the apprehension of Mr. Bidhuri that the judgement in Dr. Sandeep Dhama's case will come in the way of the petitioner, to my mind, is misplaced. Dr. Sandeep Dhama's case dealt with the issue as to whether a seat reserved for an OBC candidate could be placed in the General Category.

14.1 Nothing of that kind has been done in the present case. In fact, the two (2) seats which Mr. Bidhuri has said are reserved for the EWS Category have been kept apart and a direction has been issued vis-a-vis one of the remaining three (3) seats.

15. The petitioner will, thus, be granted admission upon fulfilment of all formalities to the institute referred to in paragraph No.1 above. The petitioner will report for this purpose within the next three days. 15.1 I am told that since the first semester has already concluded, the petitioner can only be granted admission in the second semester. Mr. Bidhuri says that, if a candidate, for some reason is required to repeat the first semester, it can only be done by repeating the same along with the third semester.

15.2 Therefore, in these circumstances, the petitioner, it appears, can be granted admission only in the second semester with liberty to take classes

and sit for exams qua the first semester along with the third semester. It is ordered accordingly.

16. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

17. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J JANUARY 14, 2020 rb