The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Huda Ansari & Anr. vs Jamia Millia Islamia & Anr.consisting of Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that there is no right vested in favour of the Petitioners, who were erroneously declared to be successful candidates on account of a technological glitch as no candidate can be permitted to take benefit of an accidental error.
Facts
All the Petitioners were selected for admission in Respondent No. 1 college and allotment letters were also issued. Petitioners reported for, and duly completed the admission process by submitting the academic fee. Thereafter, a notice was issued declaring the admissions null and void on account of technical glitch in their system. The college also set aside the admissions. A Mop-up counselling round was conducted; Petitioners participated therein but failed to get a seat. Subsequently, they raised certain objections to the provisional list of selected candidates,which were not considered by the MCC before releasing the final list of selected candidates. Aggrieved, Petitioners approached the Court.
Procedural History
The Court had directed Respondent No. 2 – Director General of Health Services (“DGHS”) to file an affidavit of a responsible officer explaining as to why despite Respondent No. 1 having knowledge of the technical glitch on 4thFebruary 2022, no action to cancel the Petitioners’ admission was taken up till 16thMarch, 2022. In compliance with the same, an affidavit was filed. The Respondent No. 2 in their affidavit explained the technical glitch resulting in such erroneous allocation of seats.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: Majority of candidates preferred to opt for admission in colleges other than Respondent No. 1 as their first choice so that they would easily secure admission therein. In round 1, whoever opted for Respondent No. 1 as their first choice, was selected for admission irrespective of their ranks since higher ranking candidates chose other colleges. It was for this reason that they were admitted to Respondent No. 1 college in the first round itself. The above-noted allocation was within the bounds of the eligibility criteria, seat matrix as well as database of all candidates’ preferences.As they were duly admitted into Respondent No. 1 college in desired course, they did not opt for upgradation of colleges. They have forgone other admission opportunities available to them in various applicable quotas.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted that there was a genuine technical glitch resulting in erroneous allocation of the seats, of which the Petitioners were beneficiaries. Despite the above clarification, Petitioners continued to insist that they should be declared as successful candidates in terms of the original allocation and seek quashing of the notice dated 16thMarch, 2022.
It was also noted that the Bench did not find any ground to issue a writ of mandamus, as prayed for. The Respondents adequately demonstrated the factors which crept in the system, leading to erroneous allocation of seats to several candidates, including, Petitioners having lower ranks than the cut-off / last rank set by Respondent No. 1, in round 1 and 2 of counselling process. The impugned notice does not take away any vested/substantive rights of the Petitioners. It was merely a step taken to correct an error whereby, an unwarranted advantage had accrued in their favour, and the same does not amount to deprivation of a vested/substantive right.
Judgment
The Bench observed that the cancellation of the seats allotted to the Petitioners was a rectification measure, and no violation of merit or admission standards had been done. Petitioners being candidates of lower merit, were not entitled to a seat in BDS course in Respondent No. 1 college that was inadvertently allotted to them in the first round. Hence, the petitions were dismissed.
Case:Huda Ansari & Anr.vs Jamia Millia Islamia & Anr.
Citation: W.P.(C) 5017/2022 & W.P.(C) 5329/2022
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula
Decided on: 6th July 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
