Delhi High Court
Samyak Bhatia vs University Of Delhi & Ors on 19 August, 2025
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Delivered on: 19.08.2025
+ W.P.(C) 15885/2024, CM APPL. 66730/2024, CM APPL. 1218/2025
& CM APPL. 12945/2025
SAMYAK BHATIA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rishi Raj Singh, Adv
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohinder JS Rupal, Mr. Hardik
Rupal and Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra,
Advocates for R-1 and R-2
Mr. Anshuman Sharma, Mr. Paritosh
Pandey, Mr. Azaz Ahmed, Advs. for
R-3.
Mr. Vikrant N. Goyal, Mr. Sumit
Goswami and Mr. Arun Kumar
Yadav, Advs. for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J
1. The case set out in the petition is that the petitioner is a citizen of
U.S.A., who holds an 'Overseas Citizen of India' [hereinafter 'OCI'] card,
having studied from 4th standard to 12th standard in India.
2. On 10.06.2024, petitioner submitted an online application form for
admission in the respondent / Delhi University [hereinafter, the 'University']
through Foreign Student's Registry [hereinafter, 'FSR'] opting B.Com
(Hons.) and B.Com. as his first and second preferences, respectively.
3. Thereafter, vide email dated 26.06.2024, while submitting documents
like NOC from U.S Embassy, updated passport, etc. for admission related
purpose, the petitioner also informed the University that he was awaiting his
CUET results. As a matter of fact, CUET result was declared on 28.07.2024.
4. In response to petitioner's application form, petitioner was informed
that his application for B.Com. (Hons.) could not be considered as he had
not studied Mathematics in Class XII. However, to secure his seat, petitioner
emailed the University on 02.07.2024, requesting that his application be
considered for the B.Com.
5. Subsequently, petitioner sent an e-mail dated 22.07.2024 thanking the
University for offering him a seat and also sent his preference list of
colleges.
6. On 14.08.2024, during a follow-up visit to the University, petitioner
was informed that he had been allotted a seat in B.Com. course at Shri Guru
Teg Bahadur Khalsa College, which was acknowledged by petitioner via
email dated 16.08.2024. The petitioner also completed the formalities like,
payment, document verification, thereby confirming his admission.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that through email dated 29.08.2024, he
made a request to the University that he should be considered for B.Com.
(Hons.) as he had studied in India continuously from IV to XII standard and
had studied Mathematics as a core subject up to Class XI. On 20.09.2024,
the petitioner escalated this issue by sending an email to Vice-Chancellor,
Registrar, and Dean of Admissions of the University.
8. Thereafter, multiple emails were exchanged between the petitioner
and the University, and the latter in its last email dated 02.10.2024, informed
that FSR and CUET processes are separate and advised petitioner to apply
through CUET in the next academic year for taking admission in B.Com.
(Hons.).
9. Mr. Rishi Raj Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner is an OCI card holder who has been
constrained to study B.Com. as a Foreign National, as he was not made
aware by the University that he could apply like an Indian National through
CUET by not publishing or communicating this crucial information at the
time of admission. He submits that the petitioner had to enrol in B.Com. as
a Foreign National as he had not studied Mathematics in Class XII.
10. He submits it was only on 02.10.2024 that the University finally
informed the petitioner that despite being an OCI holder, he could have also
applied like an Indian National through CUET.
11. He, therefore, submits that due to the University's lapse in publishing
requisite notification and timely informing that petitioner could apply like an
Indian citizen, the latter was constrained to enrol in a B.Com. course as a
Foreign National through FSR.
12. Elaborating on his submission, he submits that Indian Nationals are
not required to have studied Mathematics in Class XII to be eligible for
taking admission in B.Com. (Hons.) at the University, whereas Foreign
Nationals, like petitioner are required to study Mathematics in Class XII.
13. To support his case, Mr. Singh has placed reliance on the following
decisions in TMA Pai Foundation and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and
Ors. (2002) 8 SCC 481, PA Inamdar and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra
and Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 537, Rajan Purohit and Ors. vs. Rajasthan
University of Health Sciences and Ors. (2012) 10 SCC 770, Priya Gupta
vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., (2012) 7 SCC 433, Vanshika and Anr.
vs. University of Delhi and Ors., (2024) 2 HCC (Del) 72, Pallavi Sharma
vs. College of Vocational Studies & Anr, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 10249,
Ajay Kumar Shukla vs. State of U.P. and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine All 3804
and Asha vs. P.T. BD Sharma University of Health Science and Ors.,
(2012) 7 SCC 389.
14. Per contra, Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the University, at the outset submits that petitioner has already got
admission in B.Com. in Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa College in the
academic year 2024-25 and as an afterthought, he is now seeking admission
in B.Com. (Hons.) in the same academic year, which is not permissible.
15. He submits that petitioner had sought admission on the basis of non-
Indian passport of USA through FSR admission portal in academic session
2024-2025. As per the Admission Bulletin, FSR (2024-2025), [hereinafter,
'FSR Bulletin'], an overseas applicant seeking admission in B.Com. (Hons.)
must have studied Mathematics as a subject in Class XII, which petitioner
did not, thus, he was rightly given admission in B.Com.
16. He submits that petitioner's reliance on CUET Guidelines is
misplaced in the context of the application submitted through FSR portal.
The CUET norms apply to domestic applicants, while overseas applicants
are required to adhere to the specific criteria outlined in the FSR Bulletin.
17. He submits that the University has no structure to merge/intermix two
types of admission processes and therefore, the same is not possible. He
submits that switchover from B.Com. to B.Com. (Hons.) course is not
possible since the course content of both courses is entirely different and no
migration is possible from one course to other under the University's Act,
Statutes & Ordinances.
18. He submits that the fact that petitioner has already secured admission
in B.Com. at Shri Guru Tegh Bahadur Khalsa College demonstrates that
there has been no denial of opportunity or procedural unfairness in this
matter at the end of the University.
19. He submits that CUET-UG Admissions commenced on 28.05.2024
and ended on 07.08.2024 and the admission branch, as early as on
20.06.2024, had issued the Notification clarifying that an OCI Card Holder
candidate can also apply to UG program through CUET-CSAS portal and
the same was duly annexed and uploaded on the website of the University
on the same day. He submits that the same was done in view of decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No. 891 of 2021 titled as Anushka
Rengunthwar and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors, wherein it was
observed as under:
"Persons who are born in a foreign country subsequent to
04.03.2021........ and who seek for a registration as OCI
cardholder ....... would have a choice to either seek for
citizenship by descent or to continue as a foreigner in the
background of the subsisting policy of the Sovereign State."
20. He further submits that on announcement of the above-mentioned
Notification, CSAS portal was activated for all OCI card holders who
wished to take admissions through CUET to register on the University's
registration portal-CSAS.
21. He submits that petitioner had more than two-and-half months to
register through CUET mode but rather preferred admission under FSR's
quota. He submits that on the announcement of Notification dated
20.06.2024, CSAS registration portal did not by default relegate OCI card
holders automatically to FSR portal, as alleged by petitioner. He submits
that had the petitioner got himself registered for admission under CUET
mode, only then he could have been considered for B.Com. (Hons.) course
and not otherwise.
22. He submits that the very fact that petitioner had appeared in the
CUET Examination itself shows that petitioner was aware that he was
eligible through CUET mode also. The Petitioner, however, opted to apply
under Foreign Nationals' quota in which there is direct admission without
CUET scorecard.
23. He submits that petitioner was also well aware that under Foreign
Nationals' quota he is not eligible to seek admission in the B.Com. (Hons.)
without having studied mathematics in class XII, and therefore opted to take
admission in B.Com.
24. He submits that if petitioner is willing to study B.Com. (Hons.), then
he has to apply afresh as per the admission criteria and policy for the
academic year 2025-2026.
25. He submits that it is not correct that Notification dated 20.06.2024
was not uploaded on the University's website and no hyperlink existed on
the said website. It is a new plea taken by petitioner which is based on
disputed facts and hence, this Court cannot go into the veracity of such
disputed fact.
26. In rejoinder, Mr. Singh submits that stand of the University that the
Notification dated 20.06.2024 was duly issued, published and hyperlinked as
"1" on the University's website is incorrect and misleading, inasmuch as no
such hyperlink existed on the said webpage during the relevant period of
admissions. He submits that had such a notification truly been uploaded in
June 2024 i.e. at the relevant time, the same would have formed part of the
University's counter affidavit dated 24.01.2025. The University's failure to
do so, prima facie shows that the said Notification was in fact uploaded
much later after the admission process had concluded.
27. He invites attention of the Court to the screenshot of the University's
website taken in the month of October 2024, which is annexed as Annexure
P-28 to show that no such Notification existed on the University's website
during the relevant period.
28. He submits that the Notification dated 20.06.2024, which allegedly
informed students about OCI candidates' parity with Indian citizens was not
named in a clear or descriptive manner, but rather was titled cryptically as
"1".
29. He submits that even assuming, though not admitting, that the
hyperlink was uploaded within time, the cryptic name itself shows that the
University failed to effectively communicate the existence and purpose of
the Notification to prospective applicants. He submits that the Notification
merely quotes a paragraph from the decision in Anushka Rengunthwar
(supra) which specifically begins with words: "Persons who are born in a
foreign country subsequent to 04.03.2021...". He submits that petitioner was
born on 25.01.2006 i.e. well before the cut-off date of 04.03.2021, therefore,
the Notification does not by its plain wording cover persons like petitioner.
30. He submits that the third paragraph of the Notification also refers to
"such candidates", which, on a reasonable construction, applies only to
those born after 04.03.2021. He, therefore, contends that the language of the
Notification does not conclusively guarantee parity of OCI candidates born
prior to 2021 with Indian nationals in UG admissions. Instead, it remains
limited to a narrower class of applicants. Therefore, the Notification, even if
uploaded, failed to convey with sufficient clarity to an average Class XII
applicant its true import, thereby defeating its stated purpose.
31. He further submits that Admission/Information Bulletin (2024-2025)
and the FAQ section for FSR also contained no reference to the Notification
dated 20.06.2024. The FSR website, being the primary source of
information for overseas applicants, failed to provide any mention about the
Notification. This omission demonstrates a grave lapse on the part of the
University and violates the established principles of fairness and
transparency in admissions.
32. He submits that while it may be true that the CSAS portal was
technically activated for all OCI candidates, the very design of the portal
barred them from proceeding. He elaborates that CSAS website asks every
candidate whether they are citizens of India, and only two buttons are
displayed: "yes" and "no." There is no separate button specifically for OCI
candidates. It is obvious that an OCI holder is not a citizen of India, and
hence, on selecting "No," the portal displays information in red stating that
Foreign Nationals should apply via foreign website. He submits that this
fundamental design flaw forced OCI candidates like petitioner to exit the
CSAS registration process.
33. He submits that this fact was conveyed by petitioner to the Dean of
Admissions and the staff of the University during an in-person discussion
held in the first week of October 2024. The petitioner also summarised the
contents of this discussion in an email dated 07.10.2024, wherein he
reiterated that the question regarding citizenship directs the candidates to the
FSR website and this fact has not been controverted by the University.
34. He submits that though the petitioner attempted to register through
CUET, the same could not be completed, as during the very first step,
answering question pertaining to citizenship as "No", it led the petitioner to
apply through foreign website as a Foreign National.
35. He submits that merely because the petitioner took the CUET 2024, it
cannot automatically be inferred that he was aware that the University
permitted him to apply through CUET mode, rather the same was done by
the petitioner to ensure that every available option for securing admission
was kept open to him.
36. He submits that petitioner has an excellent academic record. Also, the
fee for applying through CSAS portal is substantially lower than the fee
payable under the Foreign Nationals' category, making it unreasonable to
believe that petitioner would voluntarily choose the more expensive option.
He submits that petitioner would also have benefitted from the reservation
for persons with benchmark disabilities, as he has 80% autism spectrum
disorder.
37. He submits that case set up by the University that the course content
of B.Com. (Hons.) and B.Com. is entirely different, is not correct. He
submits there are, in fact, several overlapping subjects which are taught in
the first year of both courses, particularly foundational papers.
38. Having heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for parties,
it needs to be noted that grievance of the petitioner essentially is that he was
constrained to take admission in B.Com. instead of B.Com (Hons.) only for
the reason that University at no stage had clarified by way of any
notification that petitioner, who is an OCI Card holder is also eligible for
admission to B.Com. (Hons.) after having appeared in CUET (UG) 2024,
despite not having studied Mathematics in Class-XII.
39. It is not in dispute that FSR Bulletin prescribes that for admission of
foreign students in B.Com. (Hons.), a candidate must have studied
Mathematics in Class XII. The relevant portion of FSR Bulletin 2024-25,
reads thus:
"Merit-based admission to B.Com. (Hons)/ B.Com. programs offered
through the Faculty of Commerce and Business Studies."
Program Program-specific Eligibility
Criteria and Combination of
Subjects for Calculation of Merit
B.Com (Hons.) An aggregate of 45% marks in the
qualifying examination. The
Candidate must have studied and
passed Mathematics / Business
Mathematics / equivalent paper
as specified in Appendix VIII at
the qualifying examination for
admission to B. Com. (Hons.).
(emphasis supplied)
40. The case of petitioner is that while applying for admissions, he had
given his first preference to B.Com. (Hons.) and second preference to
B.Com, but since the petitioner had not studied Mathematics in Class-XII,
his application for B.Com. (Hons.) was not accepted, following which on
02.07.2024, the petitioner requested the University through an e-mail to
consider his application for B.Com.
41. Accordingly, the petitioner was offered a seat in B.Com. at Shri Guru
Teg Bahadur Khalsa College which was acknowledged by him vide e-mail
dated 16.08.2024. Thereafter, petitioner completed the process of payment
and verification for his admission. Subsequently, petitioner through e-mail
dated 29.08.2024 made a request to the University that his candidature be
considered for B.Com. (Hons.) as he had studied continuously from class IV
to class XII in India and had studied Mathematics as a core subject till class
XI. Thereafter, there was exchange of e-mails between petitioner and the
University authorities. However, vide e-mail dated 02.10.2024, the
University finally informed petitioner that admission process under FSR
cannot be mixed up with admission process under CUET and petitioner is
eligible to take CUET examination but only next year. The submission on
behalf of petitioner is that it was only on 02.10.2024 that the petitioner was
informed by the university that he could have also applied like an Indian
National and had this fact been made known to petitioner at any point of
time earlier, he could have taken admission in B.Com.(Hons.).
42. On the other hand, the stand taken by the University in its additional
counter-affidavit dated 25.02.2025 is that Admission Branch of the
University as early on 20.06.2024 had issued a Notification on its website
that OCI card holder candidates can apply to undergraduate programme of
the University through CSAS and that this Notification was issued in due
compliance of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Anushka Rengunthwar (supra).
43. The petitioner has disputed the aforesaid stand of the University and
has contended that the so-called Notification dated 20.06.2024 was not
uploaded on the University's website. However, Mr. Singh on behalf of
petitioner has argued that even assuming that the said Notification was
uploaded within time, it was cryptically titled as "1", therefore, it did not
serve the purpose of a notification to prospective applicants.
44. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the University had
communicated to petitioner as early as on 02.07.2024 that his first
preference i.e. B.Com. (Hons.) could not be granted because he had not
studied Mathematics in Class XII. Thereafter, the petitioner had accepted
admission in B.Com. and completed all formalities.
45. Indubitably, petitioner got admission in B.Com. through FSR. By way
of the present petition, the petitioner is seeking admission in B.Com. (Hons.)
on the basis of his score in CUET-2024. The University in its additional
counter-affidavit, has taken a stand that registration for CUET admissions
started on 28.05.2024 and lasted for around 03 months i.e. till 07.08.2024,
which position is not disputed by the petitioner.
46. The present petition came to be filed on or about 04.11.2024 i.e. much
after the last date for registration for CUET admissions, and possibly after
the conclusion of admission process. In any case, it cannot be disputed that
the admission process for academic session 2024-25 stood concluded long
ago.
47. Incidentally, the FSR Information Bulletin contains an express bar on
the migration or transfer from one course to another after the completion of
the admission process. The relevant excerpt of "FSR Information Bulletin
2024-25" reads thus:
"13) TRANSFER AND CHANGE OF PROGRAMME.
As per the rules of University of Delhi, no request for any
Change of Programme and / or College will be entertained
after the completion of the admission process."
48. Clearly, at this stage the petitioner's prayer for change of programme
from B.Com. to B.Com. (Hons.) cannot be allowed in view of the specific
prohibition on change of programme after completion of admission process,
which cannot be left open ended for indefinite period. There has to be
finality to the admissions.1
49. It is equally settled that Prospectus / Bulletin of Information issued by
Institution / University is binding and no mandamus can be issued to the
educational institutions to act contrary to their own procedure. In this regard
reference may had to be made to the decision of Division Bench of this
Court in Pallavi Sharma (supra), wherein it was observed as under:
"14. At any rate, the law is well settled that the procedure
prescribed in the Prospectus/Bulletin of Information issued
by the institutions is binding and no mandamus can be
issued directing the educational institutions to act contrary
to their own procedure (vide Maharshi Dayanand
University v. Surjit Kaur; JT (2010) 7 SC 179)."
50. Further, the petitioner did not approach the Court with promptitude
before the completion of admission process. Even during pendency of the
present petition, by way of an interim relief, the petitioner was not permitted
to attend the classes of B.Com. (Hons.) though petitioner had prayed for the
same. The position as it stands today is that the petitioner has completed one
year of B.Com. Programme.
51. The transfer or change of programme from B.Com. to B.Com. (Hons.)
after completion of one year, otherwise does not appear to be feasible and
justified. The University in its additional counter-affidavit has taken a stand
that course content of B.Com. (Hons.) as compared to B.Com. for the First
and Second Semester is entirely different. It has further stated in the said
Meenakshi and Ors. vs. AIIMS & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2715.
affidavit that switch over from B.Com. to B.Com. (Hons.) cannot be allowed
as there is no migration possible from one course to other under the
University of Delhi's Act, Statues and Ordinances. Relevant paras of
additional counter-affidavit read thus:
"13. Even otherwise the course content of B.Com (Hons) as
compared to B.Com(pass) for the first and second semester
is entirely different."
"14. The Petitioner cannot be allowed to switch over from
B.Com (pass) to B.Com (Hons) course as there is no
migration possible from one course to the other under the
University of Delhi Act, statutes and Ordinances."
52. The above position has though been controverted by petitioner in
rejoinder, but nothing has been placed on record by petitioner along with
rejoinder to suggest that course content of B.Com. (Hons.) and B.Com. for
the First and Second Semester is identical or that there is any provision
permitting such migration.
53. This Court is cognizant that while exercising the powers under Article
226 of the Constitution cannot undertake the task of comparing the course
content of said two undergraduate programmes. Such an exercise is within
the domain of the experts. However, to satisfy conscience, this Court has
taken an overview of the course content of B.Com. and B.Com. (Hons.) of
first two semesters, which shows that in Semester-1, under the B.Com
(Hons), the Discipline Specific Core Course-1 ('DSC-1') is titled as
Management Principles and Applications. In contrast, under the B.Com.,
DSC-1 is titled as Business Organization and Management. This alone
demonstrates a divergence in course content.
54. A cursory glance of course content of Semester-2, also reveals that
B.Com. (Hons.) offers a set of four General Elective courses, viz., GE 2.1
(Communication in Management), GE 2.2 (Financial Management for
Beginners), GE 2.3 (Sales Promotion), and GE 2.4 (Computerised
Accounting System), whereas, the B.Com programme does not prescribe any
such elective subjects in Semester-2, which means that students in B.Com
can neither select nor study elective courses.
55. Juxta positioning the course contents of first two semesters of the two
programmes thus, reveals that both the courses are distinct in the first two
semesters. Therefore, on this premise also, the prayer of petitioner for
transfer and change of programme from B.Com. to B.Com. (Hons.) cannot
be entertained.
56. Before parting, the judgments cited by the petitioner may be adverted
to. The petitioner has relied upon the decisions in TMA Pai (supra); PA
Inamdar (supra); Rajan Purohit (supra); Priya Gupta (supra) and Asha
(supra) for the proposition that the admission procedures must mandatorily
satisfy the test of being fair, transparent, non-exploitative and strictly merit-
based. The said decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
The petitioner had applied for B.Com. (Hons.) as a Foreign National through
FSR. He was denied admission into B.Com. (Hons.) as he did not meet the
mandatory requirement of having studied mathematics in class XII as
stipulated in the FSR Bulletin. Accordingly, petitioner was offered
admission in B.Com., for which he was eligible in terms of FSR Bulletin,
and the same was accepted by the petitioner without demur. Insofar as
petitioner's grievance as to non-publication of, or cryptically named/worded
Notification dated 20.06.2024 is concerned, suffice it to observe at the cost
of repetition that the petitioner ought to have approached the court with
promptitude, at least before the completion of admission process. In any
case, the disputed fact concerning the publication of the Notification dated
20.06.2024 does not lead to a conclusion that the University acted unfairly.
57. Further, in Ajay Kumar Shukla (supra), the challenge was made to
validity of selections made on the post of Post Graduate Teachers (English)
for the year 2013 issued by the Secondary Education Services Selection
Board. An alternative prayer was made for revision of the final answer key
and issuance of select list on the basis thereof. The High Court of Allahabad
held that when key answers are palpably and demonstrably erroneous, the
petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of errors committed by the
Selection Board and it calls for interference by Court in exercise of its Writ
jurisdiction. The controversy involved in the present case is clearly distinct,
therefore, the said decision will also not advance the case of petitioner.
58. Likewise, the judgment of Vanshika (supra) is also distinguishable. In
the said decision the issue was that the petitioner therein had filled in the
application form for undertaking her first semester examination in February
2023 and deposited requisite fees. However, as there was a failure in the
transaction for payment of fees, no admit card was issued to the petitioner so
as to enable her to undertake the first semester examination. It was
contended that despite having not undertaken the first semester examination,
the petitioner was assured, by the relevant authorities, that she could
undertake the first semester examination along with her third semester
examination without any complications. However, the petitioner was later
on not permitted to undertake her third semester examination. In such
circumstance, a coordinate bench of this Court held that there is no case
against the petitioner, of her having been remiss either in her attendance or
in her performance as a student, in the first, second or third semesters.
Resultantly, the petition was allowed. The issue in the present case is
entirely different. The transfer or change of programme from B.Com. to
B.Com. (Hons.), as noted above, cannot be permitted after conclusion of
admission process, all the more when petitioner has already completed
B.Com. programme for one year. Hence, the said decision will not aid the
case of petitioner.
59. Similarly, petitioner's reliance on Pallavi Sharma (supra) is also
misplaced. In the said decision, it was observed by this Court that the
procedure prescribed in the Prospectus or Bulletin of Information issued by
an institution is binding on all concerned. It was held that no mandamus can
be issued directing an educational institution to act contrary to its own
established procedure. The said decision rather than supporting the case of
petitioner, reinforces the position of the University.
60. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the petition.
Accordingly, the petition alongwith pending applications, is dismissed.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J
AUGUST 19, 2025
N.S. ASWAL
