Delhi High Court
Self-Financing Education ... vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ... on 17 August, 2022
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 17th August, 2022
+ W.P.(C) 5666/2022
SELF-FINANCING EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS, (REGD.)
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sameer Rohatgi, Mr. Namit Suri, Ms.
Purnima Singh, Mr. Rameezuddin Raja and
Mr. Sushil Singhal, Advocates.
versus
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Anita Sahani, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC with Ms. Ayushi
Bansal and Mr. Sanyam Suri, Advocates for
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):
1. Petitioner - an association of colleges/ institutions affiliated with
Respondent No. 1 - Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University [hereinafter,
"the University"], is primarily aggrieved by the adoption of Common Law
Admission Test ["CLAT"] as the mode of admissions to the integrated B.A.
LL.B. (Hons.) /B.B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) courses [hereinafter, "LL.B. courses"]
by the University. This change has allegedly disadvantaged them and impeded
the filling up of the total sanctioned seats for the LL.B. courses. A writ petition
Signature Not Verified
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:23.08.2022
10:41:03
[W.P.(C) 2353/2019] has been filed impugning the adoption of CLAT as the
criteria of admission. Notwithstanding the pending challenge, by way of the
instant petition, a direction is sought to the Respondents for concluding/
finalizing the admission process against vacant seats in LL.B. courses offered
by colleges/institutions affiliated to the University by approving Common
Entrance Test ["CET"] or allowing '10+2' examination as the qualifying
examination(s) for academic year 2022 and onwards. The reliefs sought, read
as follows:
"a. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents for concluding/ finalizing
the admission process for vacant seats in law courses offered by colleges/institutions
affiliated to Respondent no.1 University by approving Common Entrance Test
("CET") or allowing qualifying exam (10+2) as the mode and manner for
administering admissions for filling vacant seats in colleges/institutions for the
Academic Year 2022 onwards in terms of the Orders dated 16.07.2020 and
02.02.2021 passed by this Hon'ble Court; and
b. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent no. 1 to amend the Admission
Brochure for the Academic Year 2022-2023 to provide for an alternative
mode/mechanism in the form of Common Entrance Test or allowing qualifying exam
(10+2) as the mode and manner for administering admissions for filling vacant seats
in colleges/institutions for the Academic Year 2022 onwards;"
2. Vide order dated 03rd August, 2022, the instant petition was directed to
be listed along with W.P.(C). 2353/2019 (challenging CLAT as the mode for
admissions to LL.B. courses) and W.P.(C) 3838/2019 (challenging NIT MCA
Common Entrance Test as the mode for admissions to the MCA course),
which are shown in the causelist for today. It is also noticed that an interim
order dated 01st April, 2019 was passed in W.P.(C) 2353/2019 in favour of
Petitioner-institutions staying the adoption of CLAT as the admission criteria
for LL.B. courses. However, the said interim order was challenged before the
Supreme Court vide SLP Diary No. 18943 of 2019 and S.L.P.(C) No. 13559-
Signature Not Verified
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:23.08.2022
10:41:03
60 wherein the stay was vacated. Further, vide a combined order passed by
the Supreme Court dated 22nd July, 2019 in the SLPs, it was held that the
aforesaid interim order had been worked out and the SLPs became
infructuous. The question of law was however, left open. Mr. Sameer Rohatgi,
counsel for Petitioner-institutions, submits that the issue of adoption of CLAT
as the mode of admission would be urged before this Court on its own turn.
However, the instant petition is independent and distinct and should be heard,
regardless of the pendency of the above-stated petitions.
3. In the opinion of the Court, the issue raised in the afore-noted petitions
and the instant one are related, particularly since orders dated 16th July, 2020
and 02nd February, 2021 passed in W.P. (C) 2353/2019 form the foundation
for the instant petitions. Nonetheless, since Mr. Rohatgi presses urgency, the
Court has proceeded to hear this matter
4. In order to comprehend the grievance of Petitioner-institutions, a brief
introduction to the background of the case is necessary. The admissions to the
Petitioner-institutions were originally on the basis of the CET till academic
year 2018-19. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2-Directorate of Higher
Education, Government of NCT of Delhi [hereinafter, "GNCTD"], vide order
dated 11th February, 2019, permitted the University to adopt National Level
Tests/ All India Entrance Tests, such as JEE-Main Paper, CAT, CLAT, etc.
as the basis for admissions to certain courses from the academic year 2019-
20. The University effected the said change in the admission policy vide order
26th February, 2019 and the same has continued to the present academic year.
Petitioner-institutions contend that this fundamental change in the admission
Signature Not Verified
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:23.08.2022
10:41:03
policy has worked to their detriment. Despite having adequate infrastructure
in place, they have been unable to fill the sanctioned strength of seats fixed/
approved by the University and Respondent No. 2- GNCTD. This, according
to Mr. Rohatgi, is attributable entirely to the adoption of CLAT as the basis
for admissions to LL.B. courses, which were originally carried out through
CET. Mr. Rohatgi contends that ever since CLAT was adopted as the
admission criteria, the number of vacant seats of Petitioner-institutions have
gradually increased. For the academic year 2020-21, the number swelled from
708 to 755 and then further increased to 1207 in the academic year 2021-22.
Reliance is placed on a chart demonstrating the progression in the vacant seats
from academic years 2019-2020 till 2021-2022 (annexed as Annexure P-3 to
the petition). He argues that vacant seats do not benefit anyone and are a waste
of national resources and therefore, the University must devise a mechanism
for filling up the vacant seats.
5. Mr. Rohatgi has taken the Court through the relevant portion of the
admission brochure for the academic year 2022-23, prescribing the admission
criteria, to draw a comparison between the admission policy for the LL.B.
courses and other professional courses, wherein the criteria for the LL.B.
course is as follows:
"1.1 National Level Tests Based Admissions
1.1.1 National Level Test for Admissions (Non-Medical)
For the following CET Codes the University shall use the merit / score of the
National Level Test Conducted by agencies other than the University. They are:
S.No Name of Programme Course Abbreviated CET
Duration Name of Code
Programmee
4. 1. Integrated 5 yrs Integrated 121"
B.A.LL.B.(Hons.) B.A. LL.B.
2. Integrated B.B.A.LL.B (Hons.)
Signature Not Verified
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:23.08.2022
10:41:03
(Hons.) I
Note: All admissions shall be Integrated
on the basis of the merit of B.B.A.LL.B.
Common Law Admission Test (Hons.)
- Under Graduate, 2022
(CLAT - UG, 2022) that is
conducted by National Law
University's on a rotational
basis.
The University shall not
conduct its own CET for
admissions, but shall be
utilizing the merit prepared
on the basis of (CLAT - UC,
2022) for its admissions.
6. In comparison, the admission criteria for MBA and MCA courses, is as
under:
"CHAPTER- 3 : Admissions Criteria for Admission in Programmes MBA (Code 101)
i.e. MBA, MBA (International Business), MBA (Financial Management), MBA
(Financial Analysis) and MBA (Analytics):
3.1 Admission Criteria on the basis of merit in CAT 2021 (Common Entrance Test)
S. No. Name of Code ADMISSION
Programme CRITERIA
1 MBA, MBA 101 Admission Criteria:
(International
All admissions shall
Business), MBA
be made on the basis
(Financial Analysis)
of overall Percentile
and MBA
of Common
(Analytics)
Admission Test (CAT)
2021 that was
conducted by Indian
Institute of
Management.
3.2 Admission Criteria on the basis of merit in CMAT 2022 (Common
Management Admission Test)
S. No. Name of Code ADMISSION
Programme CRITERIA
1 MBA, MBA 101 Admission Criteria:
(International
1. All admissions shall
Business), MBA
be made on the basis
(Financial
of overall Percentile of
Signature Not Verified
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:23.08.2022
10:41:03
Analysis) and MBA Common Admission
(Analytics) Test (CAT) 2021 that
was conducted by
Indian Institute of
Management.
2. If seats remain
vacant after
counselling on the
basis of Score in
CMAT 2022 (another
National Level Test).
3.3 Admission Criteria on the basis of merit in GGSIPU CET 2022 (Common
Entrance Test)
S. No. Name of Code ADMISSION
Programme CRITERIA
1 MBA, MBA 101 Admission Criteria
(International
1. All admission shall
Business), MBA
be made on the basis
(Financial
of overall Percentile of
Analysis) and MBA
Common Admission
(Analytics)
Test (CAT) 2021 that
was conducted by
Indian Institute of
Management.
2. If seats remain
vacant after
counselling on the
basis of overall
percentile of CAT
2021, then only the
counselling shall be
conducted on the basis
of Score in CMAT
2022 (another
National Level Test)
3. In case seat still
remain vacant even
after exhausting CAT
2021 and CMAT 2022
Merit, University will
consider admissions in
Programme MBA
(Code 101) on the
basis of merit in
GGSIPU CET 2022
conducted by GGSIP
University.
Signature Not Verified
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:23.08.2022
10:41:03
S. No. Name of Programme Course Abbreviated CET Code
Duratio Name of
n Programmee
1. xxx xxx xxx xxx
2 Master of Computer
Application/ Master of
Computer Applicants
(Software Engineering)
Note: All admissions shall be
2 yrs MCA 105"
on the basis of Merit of
NIMCET 2022.
If Seats remain vacant after
counselling on the basis of
merit of
NIMCET 2022, the University
will consider admission in
MCA/
MCA (SE) programmes on the
basis of merit of Common
Entrance
Test (CET) to be conducted by
GGSIP University
3. xxx xxx xxx xxx
4. xxx xxx xxx xxx
5. xxx xxx xxx xxx
6. xxx xxx xxx xxx
7. xxx xxx xxx xxx
8. xxx xxx xxx xxx
7. Mr. Rohatgi argues that while multiple admission tests have been
prescribed for MBA and MCA courses, admissions to LL.B. courses can be
made on the basis of CLAT alone and CET is expressly barred. The University
has arbitrarily devised a different criterion for LL.B. courses without any
rationale, thereby precluding admissions through other entrance
examinations, which are allowed for other courses. It is contended that there
is no reasonable explanation for not placing LL.B. courses on a similar footing
Signature Not Verified
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:23.08.2022
10:41:03
as MBA and MCA courses. Such a discrimination between courses offered
by the same University is therefore, unreasonable, whimsical and arbitrary.
Thus, devising alternative mechanisms to fill up the vacant seats is imperative.
8. Further, Mr. Rohatgi has also relied upon orders dated 16th July, 2020
and 02nd February, 2021 passed in W.P.(C) 2353/2019 to emphasise that
despite repeated directions to Respondents to devise alternative mechanisms
to fill the large number of seats going vacant, the Respondents have
completely ignored Petitioner's grievances. In absence of any proper and
effective mechanism to fill the vacant seats, Petitioner-institutions are
severely prejudiced and their fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India, 1950 stands defeated. Reliance is placed on Index
Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre v. State of Madhya
Pradesh.1
9. Lastly, to buttress his submissions, Mr. Rohatgi places reliance on
notification dated 28th March, 2016 issued by Respondent No. 2-GNCTD
(annexed as Annexure P-8 to the petition) pursuant to which, admissions to
LL.B. courses were done on the basis of CET and vacant seats which could
not be filled in counselling through the regular mode, permitted to be filled
on basis of CLAT. There was a reserve/alternative mechanism in place for
filling vacant seats which has now been arbitrarily amended.
10. Per contra, Ms. Anita Sahani, counsel for the University, submits that
1 2021 SCC Online SC 318
Signature Not Verified
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:23.08.2022
10:41:03
Petitioner-institutions being affiliated to the University, are bound by its
policies pertaining to admission criteria. No right accrues in their favour to
insist on issuing a mandamus for fixing an admission criteria, which is
contrary to the policies of the University itself. The criteria for MBA/ MCA
courses are different and no uniform admission policy can be prescribed for
all courses, given the difference in admission timelines and ratio of applicants
to the number of seats in the said courses, vis-à-vis LL.B. courses.
11. Ms. Sahani has also pointed out that pursuant to order dated 16th July
2020 in W.P.(C) 2353/2019, the University considered the representation of
Petitioner-institutions and passed order dated 17th August, 2020, but rejected
the request to consider an alternative mechanism for vacant seats. The said
decision was rendered after due consideration of all facts and circumstances;
in absence or any manifest unreasonableness or arbitrariness, there can be no
ground for interference.
12. Further, Ms. Sahani contends that Petitioner-institutions have been
repeatedly seeking identical relief as sought in the present petition from this
Court in W.P.(C) 2353/2019 which is evident from the prayers in C.M. APPL.
11957/2020 and C.M. APPL. 29489/2020 in the said petition (annexed as
Annexure R-4 and R-8 to the counter affidavit of Respondent No. 1,
respectively).
13. Mr. Arun Aggarwal, ASC for GNCTD, supports the submissions made
by Ms. Sahani, and states that in academic matters such as this, the
interference of Court should be minimal. Since there is no irrationality borne
Signature Not Verified
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:23.08.2022
10:41:03
out from the facts presented, the Court should not be inclined to entertain the
present petition. Separately, Mr. Aggarwal pointed out that Petitioner-
institutions have been increasing the seats for the LL.B. courses which has
contributed to increase in vacancies. Moreover, aspirants consider and weigh
several factors, inter alia, geographical remoteness of institutes for applying
to institutes. Providing for other modes is neither desirable nor conducive.
14. The Court has heard the counsel for the parties at sufficient length. At
the outset, it is noted that Petitioner had sought a similar relief, as in the
present petition, viz. a direction to University to "formulate a mechanism for
admission of students to fill up the vacant seats in the colleges institutions
offering the LL.B. course for academic year 2020-21 as has been provided for
other courses, namely, MBA and MCA courses" vide an interim application
in W.P.(C) 2353/2019 before this Court. On the said request, directions were
issued vide order on 16th July, 2020, relevant extract whereof reads as under:
"5. I cannot help noticing that respondent No. 1 has given the number of seats
that have remained vacant in the past years for LLB course. In 2016- 17, out of 2700
seats, 399 seats remained vacant for LLB course. In 2017- 18,276 seats remained
vacant. In 201 8-19,356 seats remained vacant. In the year 2019-2020, out of 2670
seats, 712 seats for the 13 colleges remained vacant.
xx ... xx ... xx
7. Given the above situation, let respondent No. 1 treat the present
application as a representation of the petitioner. Let respondent No. 1 take a decision
on the said representation based on the observations made in this order and keeping
into view that fact leaving a large number of seats vacant would be waste of
resources. Let respondent No. 1 take a decision within three weeks from today."
15. Thereafter, in another interim application in W.P.(C) 2353/2019, the
Petitioner-institutions sought direction to the University to "formulate a
mechanism for admission of students to fill up the vacant seats in the colleges
institutions offering the LL.B. course for academic year 2020-21". The said
Signature Not Verified
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:23.08.2022
10:41:03
application was decided vide order dated 2nd February 2021, wherein the
University was requested to consider and evolve a proper mechanism for
filling up vacant seats in future academic sessions. It was observed that the
afore-said statute had admittedly not been amended, and further, that this was
a matter for the Respondents to decide themselves, in order to ensure benefit
to all involved parties whilst not compromising on academic standards. The
relevant portion of the said order reads as under:
"10. However, the University and the GNCTD are directed to consider evolving a
proper mechanism for future years so that the vacancy position which has emerged
in the last few years is not perpetuated, if possible. As recorded in the order dated
16.07.2020, the consequence of seats being left vacant is a wastage of resources, to
the detriment of both the colleges and prospective students. These are the matters
for the parties to consider and take a proper decision, which would enure to the
benefit of the stakeholders while avoiding any excessive compromise with academic
standards. Such consideration and decision will be taken by the University and the
GNCTD as expeditiously as practicable, and if possible, be made applicable from
the next academic year."
16. In light of the afore-noted directions, Petitioner-institutions have
already exhausted their remedy qua the relief sought in the present
proceedings. Petitioner cannot get another bite of the apple. Nonetheless, the
Court has delved into the merits. Petitioner-institutions' challenge to the
admission criteria is founded on the plea that it is not commercially viable as
they are not able to fill up the vacant seats. The University has considered and
deliberated upon the representation of Petitioner-institutions, which was
rejected vide order dated 17th August, 2020 for reasons recorded therein. The
said order has been passed after taking into account facts and circumstances
and gives cogent reasons supporting the decision, which include, inter alia,
the fact that certain institutions are located in remote areas and are given less
preference by students and thus, there are vacant seats.
Signature Not Verified
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:23.08.2022
10:41:03
17. One can also not ignore that the demand for courses like the LL.B. is
inter-linked with the job market and economy. Besides, as pointed out by the
University, all seats are never filled up and vacancies remain for each year not
just for LL.B. courses but others as well. This has been explained and depicted
in Annexure R-1/12, annexed to the counter-affidavit of the University. Thus,
there can be several reasons for vacancy and cannot be pin-pointed to the
change in admission criteria. Pertinently, the number of students that finally
take admission depends upon a student's own preference of the course and
college/institution, which in turn, depends on the demand for the said course
in the job market. As noted in the order of University dated 17th August, 2020,
against the 2670 sanctioned seats for the academic year 2020-21, about 9308
admission forms were received, on the basis of which it was expected that
seats would not go vacant. Therefore, the present situation of vacancies for
admission to the LL.B. courses is not on account of decline in number of
applications from eligible candidates against the sanctioned strength. It is
perhaps because the students are not showing interest in Petitioner-
institutions. Accordingly, in the opinion of the Court, no case for seeking an
additional or alternative mechanism for filling vacant seats is made out.
18. It also needs no reiteration that Petitioner-institutions are bound to
comply by the rules and policies of their affiliating University given that
Universities themselves are best placed to formulate the same, and the
University has already notified that the admissions to the academic year 2022-
23 for the LL.B. courses will be on the basis of CLAT only. Any further step
in this direction has to be taken by the University itself. The University is
entitled to devise its own admission criteria, in accordance with law.
Signature Not Verified
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:23.08.2022
10:41:03
19. In relation to allowing marks obtained in '10+2' examinations to be
considered as a qualification for admission into LL.B. courses, the Delhi
Professional Colleges of Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee,
Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee and Other
Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence) Act, 2007 presently prescribes for
admissions through a 'common entrance test'2 and not on the basis of marks
obtained in '10+2' examination. Stipulating '10+2' examinations marks as
the mode and manner for administrating admission for filling up vacant seats
instead of CLAT may become a turbid and flexible process which may not be
desirable. In the opinion of the Court, the uniformity in the admission process
must be endeavoured and any dilution of admission criteria could impact
adversely the academic standards. Since the relevant statute specifies the
admission policy on the basis of an entrance test, the Court finds no merit in
the argument of the Petitioner to interfere in such admission criteria.
20. Further, no parallel can be drawn from the admission criteria for MBA
and MCA courses. First, the number of students registering for counselling
for LL.B. courses far exceeds the number of sanctioned seats; whereas
applications received for MBA/MCA courses are less than the total number
of sanctioned seats. Second, the Court finds merit in the submission of Ms.
Sahani that the said courses are post-graduation courses, as opposed to the
LL.B. courses, which are at the under-graduate level and there are differences
in terms of timing of the entrance examinations/ admissions. For MBA and
Section 13 of the Delhi Professional Colleges Act, 2007.
Signature Not Verified
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:23.08.2022
10:41:03
MCA courses, there are multiple national level examinations for admissions
to these courses that are held around November every year. Thus, the
University has enough time to hold/consider multiple entrance examinations
to fill up the vacant seats, if any, for the relevant academic session. In contrast,
CLAT is held in May/June every year and the admissions process is generally
completed around July. Resultantly, there is only a short window of time for
the University to complete the admission process for LL.B. courses for the
academic year and thus, it may not be possible to conduct CET and conclude
the admission for the remaining vacant seats before the commencement of the
relevant academic year. In light of the above, there exists a rational basis for
the University to stipulate CLAT as the sole admission criterion for LL.B.
courses at variance with courses like MBA and MCA.
21. Significantly, it must be remembered that each University has its own
character, and the admission policy is the roadmap for the University to
achieve its objective. It has the freedom to adopt such policies which are
viable and best suited for them. In absence of any manifest arbitrariness, there
is no compelling reason for the Court to interfere. Commercial loss on account
of vacant seats is being linked to admission policy in the present matter,
without any convincing basis. The Court cannot compel a University to
modify the admission criteria and admit students accordingly, merely because
certain seats will be left vacant. Filling up of vacancies cannot be at the cost
of compromising academic excellence, particularly when no manifest
connection is made out between the adoption of CLAT as the mode of
admission and vacancy of seats. As rightly pointed out by Ms. Sahani, the
choice of institution is ultimately of the students, who for reasons such as
Signature Not Verified
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:23.08.2022
10:41:03
geographical remoteness of an institution, might not prefer admission therein.
The pitched violation of fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution is a far cry, and completely unfounded.
22. In light of the foregoing, and considering that the Court has already
considered the relief sought by Petitioner-institutions in the orders dated 16th
July, 2020 and 02nd February, 2021 passed in W.P.(C) 2353/2019, the Court
finds no good ground to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution to grant the relief sought in the present petition.
23. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
AUGUST 17, 2022
d.negi
(corrected and released on 23rd August, 2022)
Signature Not Verified
By:SAPNA SETHI
Signing Date:23.08.2022
10:41:03
