Delhi High Court
Vansh Saroa vs Vice Chancellor, University Of ... on 15 February, 2021
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 15th February, 2021
+ W.P.(C) 860/2021
VANSH SAROA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate
versus
VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF
DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ankur Chibber, Advocate
with Mr. Nikunj Arora,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)
%
The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through
hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).
1. Mr. Ankur Chibber, learned counsel for the University of Delhi,
has entered appearance pursuant to the order of this Court dated
21.01.2021.
2. Although the counter-affidavit of the Union of India has not
been filed, Mr. Chibber has produced in Court a copy of an affidavit
dated 15.02.2021, affirmed by Dr. Vikas Gupta, Registrar of
University. The said affidavit is taken on record, and Mr. Chibber is
directed to file it in the course of the day. The affidavit has already
been served upon learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the fact
that the petition involves a prayer for admission to the University, it
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:16.02.2021
21:58:15
has been taken up for hearing with the consent of learned counsel for
the parties, without waiting for the affidavit to be filed in the Registry.
3. Mr. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits
that the petitioner applied to the University for admission in various
under-graduate courses for academic session 2020-21 in the Scheduled
Castes [SC] reserved category. His grievance is that he is not being
admitted to the University, despite the fact that several seats remain
vacant in the SC category, which the University has not filled up at all.
4. Mr. Chibber relies upon the contents of the affidavit to submit
that the petitioner did not even meet the minimum eligibility criteria
for the courses in which he sought admission. He further submits that,
during the admission process, the University released seven cut off
lists in addition to a special drive that was held in December, 2020 for
admission to the remaining seats in various reserved categories.
According to Mr. Chibber, the petitioner did not meet the cut off in
any of these rounds. He further submits that the vacancies to which the
petitioner has referred in the writ petition have arisen after the close of
admissions by the University on 31.12.2020. It is his specific case that
all the seats in the respective categories were filled as a result of the
aforesaid rounds of the admission, but vacancies have arisen
subsequent to the admission process having been concluded.
5. The aforesaid contentions of the University are detailed in
paragraph 4 to 8 of the counter-affidavit.
6. It appears therefrom that the petitioner had cleared the Class XII
examination with the following marks [after excluding the internal
assessment marks, as provided in the Bulletin of Information]:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:16.02.2021
21:58:15
"English 32.5
Chemistry 49.66666667
Physics 43.33333333
Mathematics 36.25"
7. The eligibility criteria of the various courses in which the
petitioner had applied are mentioned in the counter-affidavit, both in
the general category and after giving 5% relaxation for the SC
category, were as follows:-
"a. BA (Hons) Political Science - An aggregate of
45% (45% - 5% of 45% = 42.75% for SC category)
marks in the qualifying examination.
b. BSc (Hons) Botany - 55% (55%- 5% of 55% =
52.25% for SC category) or more marks in the
aggregate of Physics, Chemistry,
Biology/Biotechnology/Biochemistry (Practical &
Theory together) and 50% (50%- 5% of 50% = 47.5%
for SC category) or more marks in one compulsory
language i.e. English
c. B.Sc (Hons) Zoology - 55% (55%- 5% of 55% =
52.25% for SC category) or more marks in the
aggregate of Physics, Chemistry,
Biology/Biotechnology/Biochemistry (Practical &
Theory together) and 50% (50%- 5% of 50% = 47.5%
for SC category) or more marks in one compulsory
language i.e. English
d. B.Sc (Prog.) Physical Science with Electronics -
45% (45% - 5% of 45% = 42.75% for SC category) or
more marks in the aggregate of Physics, Chemistry/
Computer Science, Mathematics (Practical & Theory
together) and passing in one compulsory language (i.e.
English)" (Emphasis supplied.)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:16.02.2021
21:58:15
8. Calculating the petitioner's Class XII marks with regard to the
aforesaid eligibility criteria, the petitioner's marks were computed as
follows for each of the four courses:-
BA (Hons) Political Science 41.625%
B.Sc (Hons) Botany 48%
B.Sc (Hons) Zoology 48%
B.Sc (Programme) Physical Science with 43.083%
Electronics
9. In the aforesaid undisputed factual position, the petitioner
cannot be granted the relief sought for the following reasons:
(a) The petitioner does not appear to have met the minimum
eligibility criteria for any of the courses in which he has applied.
Further, the requirements of B.Sc. (Hons) Botany and B.Sc. (Hons)
Zoology required a minimum of 50% [47.5% after granting 5%
relaxation for the SC category] in English, which also the petitioner
had failed to obtain.
(b) The University's affidavit specifically states that the cut offs for
each of these courses in the colleges in which the petitioner had
applied, were significantly higher than the result obtained by the
petitioner. This has been tabulated in paragraph 4 of the affidavit. As
far as BA (Hons) Political Science is concerned, the University has
pointed out that all the seats in the SC categories in the colleges to
which the petitioner had applied, have in fact been filled, and there are
no vacancies as claimed by the petitioner. In B.Sc (Hons) Botany,
B.Sc (Hons) Zoology, and B.Sc (Programme) Physical Science with
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:16.02.2021
21:58:15
Electronics, the lowest cut off on which the candidates were admitted
in any of the petitioner's preferred colleges were 65%, 70%, and 45%
respectively [as against the petitioner's score of 48%, 48%, and
43.083% respectively]. The petitioner cannot, in these circumstances,
claim any right to be admitted to the University.
(c) It is additionally submitted by Mr. Chibber that the vacancies
have in fact arisen after the close of admissions on 31.12.2020. He
relies upon an order passed by this Court dated 02.02.2021 in
W.P.(C)1330/2021 [Shefali Shukla vs. University of Delhi & Anr.]
wherein, relying upon the judgments of the Division Bench in Dr.
Rajiv Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors. [W.P.(C) 2275/2010,
decided on 01.08.2014] and of a Coordinate Bench in Saubhagya Dua
vs. Union of India & Anr. [W.P.(C) 8303/2019, decided on
13.08.2019], this Court held that the University cannot be directed to
fill up seats which have become vacant due to candidates not taking up
the seats after admission, as it would render the counselling and
admission process entirely incapable of conclusion. The said
reasoning applies to the present case as well.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the petitioner's
claim in the present petition is unmerited. The petition is therefore
dismissed.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
FEBRUARY 15, 2021
'j'
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:16.02.2021
21:58:15
