Delhi High Court
Vidushi Kasniya vs University Of Delhi & Ors. on 30 September, 2024
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 977/2024
VIDUSHI KASNIYA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Gunjan Kumar, Ms. Sumitra
Choudhary, Mr. Raghav Raman, Ms.
Jasmine Sheikh, Ms. Nitya Sharma
and Mr. Aditya Choudhary,
Advocates.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Mr. Hardik
Rupal and Ms. Aruiwariya Malhotra,
Advocates for University of Delhi.
Ms. Manisha Agarwal Narain, CGSC
with Mr. Rahul Kumar Sharma, GP
and Mr. Chandan Deep Singh, Mr.
Sandeep Singh Somaria, Advocates
for R-3&4.
% Date of Decision: 30th September, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, CJ : (ORAL)
1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 23rd August,
2024 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 11640/2024 whereby
learned Single Judge dismissed the petition filed by the Appellant herein.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the Appellant applied for
admission in the PG course i.e. M.A. in Psychology in the sports quota as
the Appellant is a Karate Champion and has won many accolades and
awards in the same. He states that the online application for admission in
M.A. in Psychology did not show "Karate" in the options even though the
same has been mentioned in their Bulletin of Information of CSAS
("Courses through Common Seat Allocation System") (PG)-2024, due to
which the Appellant could not select the option of "Admission on Sports
Supernumerary Quota".
3. He states that Respondent University has considered the sport
"Karate" for providing Sports Numerary Quota until the Undergraduate
("UG") Courses and even for selected Post Graduate ("PG") Courses (M.A.
Music, M.P.Ed., B.P. Ed, M.F.A. etc.,) but has denied the same for other
Post Graduate Courses.
4. Learned counsel for the Delhi University points out that in Chapter 19
of the Bulletin, the University provides guidelines in respect of granting
admission to "Performance/Practical/Audition/Sport-Proficiency Based
Programs". Thereafter, a list of games/sports, to be considered for
'awarding the sports proficiency marks' is provided in the Bulletin which
provides for 30 sports, including Karate.
5. He points out that in contrast, Chapter 20 of the Bulletin provides
guidelines in respect of granting admission in 'Sports Supernumerary
Quota' in the PG courses. Chapter 20 of the Bulletin clearly provides the list
of sports, which shall be considered for the purpose of granting admission
under the Sports quota and the same does not include the sport "Karate".
6. He emphasizes that the Appellant herein has applied for admission in
M.A. Psychology in respect of which she has sought benefit under Sports
quota, and thus, only Chapter 20 of the Bulletin will be applicable in the
case of the Appellant.
7. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the Appellant states Chapter 20 of the
Bulletin is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of
his submission, he relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Deepak
Sibal & Ors. vs. Punjab University & Anr. AIR 1989 SC 903.
8. This Court is of the view that it is the policy decision of the
University of Delhi, which is a central university, to decide the eligibility
criteria, frame the guidelines for admission in different undergraduate or
postgraduate courses etc., which would include deciding the sports/games to
be considered for the purpose of granting admission in PG courses, under
sports quota. Consequently, it would also be within the domain of
University's discretion to decide whether a particular sport, such as Karate,
is to be included in such sports quota or not. A candidate/student cannot
claim, as a matter of right, that the sport he or she participates in must be
included in the sports quota. After all, it is admitted position that all sports
are not at par and do not enjoy same popularity. A Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Arjun vs. University of Delhi, LPA 10/2021 has held as under :-
"6. We are not in agreement with the aforesaid contention of learned
counsel for the appellants (original petitioners) for the following reasons :
(i) Annexure P/1 which are the Guidelines for admission on the basis of
sports quota (relevant page being 128), is a policy decision of the Delhi
University.
(ii) In our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly not exercised his
extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to interfere with the policy decision of the respondent University. Which
game should be included for determining the admission quota on the
basis of sports and amongst them which game should fall to the
male/female category, is essentially a conscious policy decision, based on
the wisdom and expertise of the policy maker. It is well settled that
Courts should be extremely slow in interfering with policy decisions,
unless they are completely arbitrary, as formulation of policies is neither
the domain nor the prerogative of the Courts.
(iii) The appellants have participated in the selection process in the
category of Basket Ball in terms of the Information Bulletin issued by
the Delhi University, completely aware of the guidelines including the
noninclusion of Netball in the "Men Category". They cannot now turn
around to challenge the guidelines to improve their ranking for
admission. It is well settled that once a candidate participates in the
selection process, he cannot turn around and challenge the same, having
been unsuccessful and in this context, the learned Single Judge has rightly
relied on the judgement in W.P.(C) 7832/2020 titled Ms. Meenakshi &
Ors. vs. AIIMS."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. The judgment in Deepak Sibal & Ors. vs. Punjab University &
Anr.(supra) has no application to the facts of the present case.
10. Consequently, the present appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
SEPTEMBER 30, 2024
mk
