Full Judgment Text
$~A-26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 22.12.2020
+ W.P.(C) 10120/2020
HRITHIK RANA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Avadh Kaushik and Ms.Shriya
Bhat, Advs.
Versus
DELHI UNIVERSITY SPORTS COUNCIL & ORS...... Respondents
Through Mr.Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Standing
Counsel with Mr.Hardik Rupal, Adv. for Delhi
University.
Mr. Saurabh Chadda and Mr.Rohit Bhagat, Advs.
for R-3/DDCA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (Oral)
This hearing is conducted through Video-Conference.
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking an appropriate writ
against the respondent Delhi University challenging the communication
dated 05.12.2020 whereby the petitioner has been declared to be ‘not
eligible’ for awarding Sports Quota Marks in getting admission in the
undergraduate courses of Delhi University.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a brilliant sports
person who has played in State Level (Inter-State and Inter-Zone) Cricket
Tournament representing Delhi Men’s Under-19 Team in the Cooch Behar
W.P.(C) 10120/2020 Page 1 of 8
Trophy Tournament in the Domestic Season 2019-20 which is organized by
the Board of Cricket Control of India (BCCI).
3. In April 2020, Delhi University published its annual Bulletin of
Information for admission to undergraduate courses in various colleges
which dealt with the guidelines for admission on the basis of sports. In July
2020 after declaration of the result, the petitioner got himself registered with
Delhi University through online process by submitting a common admission
application form. All the requisite documents including the two sports
th
certificates, namely, for Cooch Behar Trophy issued by DDCA and for 64
National School Games Super Seven Boys Under-19 (2018-19) issued by
SGFI were also uploaded on the portal. On 02.12.2020, the petitioner was
shocked and surprised to see that no marks were awarded to the petitioner
under the sports quota by Delhi University. The petitioner was declared
ineligible for the sports quota.
4. On 03.12.2020, the petitioner lodged an objection. On 05.12.2020, the
petitioner received an email stating that the sports certificates uploaded by
the petitioner do not fall in the criteria for marking of merits/participation of
sports certificates and hence, the petitioner is not eligible. Hence, the present
writ petition.
5. The respondent Delhi University has filed its counter-affidavit. The
respondent Delhi University has in its counter-affidavit pointed out that the
University had conducted centralized sports admission process for 2020-21
on the basis of evaluation/marking of merit/participation sports certificates
only. It was due to the unprecented pandemic that no sports trial could be
conducted. The candidates were given time to apply under the Sports
Category from 20.06.2020 to 31.08.2020. The applicants who had already
W.P.(C) 10120/2020 Page 2 of 8
registered in the said period could edit their information in the application
form till 05.10.2020. The applicants have been assessed under the Sports
Category on the basis of uploaded three merits participation sports
certificates of the preceding three years in the concerned sports/games.
Regarding the certificates uploaded by the petitioner, it has been
pointed that the communication issued by DDCA dated 18.03.2020 is
merely on the letter head of DDCA and does not qualify to be a
merit/participation certificate. In terms of Rule 6.2 (2), the same cannot be
accepted for eligibility under Sports Quota for undergraduate admission.
That apart, the certificate is not issued by the appropriate sports federation as
stipulated in Rule 6.2. The second certificate uploaded by the petitioner is a
mere participation certificate and that too for a cricket format of “Super
Seven”. This format is also not acceptable in terms of the prescribed format.
Hence, the case of the petitioner was rejected.
6. Respondent No. 3/Delhi District Cricket Association has also filed its
counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that Cooch
Behar Trophy Tournament a 4-Day National Cricket Tournament for Under-
19 players being organized since 1945-46 and presently, controlled by the
Board of Control of Cricket in India. It is stated that the petitioner is one of
the players who was selected in the squad of 15 that represented Delhi U-19
Men’s Team in the said Cooch Behar Trophy Tournament in the year 2019-
20. It is also stated that the said certificate in question issued under the
reference was issued to the petitioner pursuant to the selection of the
petitioner in the Delhi U-19 Men’s Team for Cooch Behar Tournament.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 DDCA has pointed out that
W.P.(C) 10120/2020 Page 3 of 8
respondent No. 3 is flooded with complaints from large number of
students from Delhi University regarding rejection of their
applications/certificates. He has pointed out that the format in which the
certificate has been given to the petitioner is a format that has been followed
for several years in the past. It appears that there is a change in the format
now sought by Delhi University in view of the changed procedure of
selection where trials have been dispensed with due to the present pandemic.
Under the new process of selection these certificates are being rejected
whereas other universities are accepting the same.
9. In my opinion, the plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted for
various reasons.
10. Firstly, I may note that the manner of giving certificate has been
stipulated in the brochure which reads as follows:-
“Criteria for Marking of Merit/Participation Sports Certificate
Category Level of
Game/Sport
Competition(s)
Certificate Issuing
Authority
Maximum Marks (100)
st
1
Position
nd
2
Position
rd
3
Position
Participati
on
A
Representing India
in Olympic
Games/World
Championship/Worl
d
Cup/Commonwealth
Games/Asian
Games/Asian
Championship/Sout
h Asian Games/
Paralymic Games
IOC/ISF/CGF/
OCA/SAOC /IPC/
IOA/NSF
Recognized and
funded by Ministry
of Your Affairs &
Sports (MYAS)
DIRECT ADMISSION
B Position and/or
participation in
International
Youth/Junior
Competition/Nattion
al Games/
Federation
Cup/Senior
National/
National/Inter-Zonal
National/National
ISF/IOA/NSF
recognized and
funded by Ministry
of Youth Affairs &
Sports (MYAS)/
School Games
Federation of India
(SGFI)
98 88 78 68
W.P.(C) 10120/2020 Page 4 of 8
School Games
Under 17/19/ Khelo
India School/Youth
Games Under
17/21/Youth/Junior
National/Sub-
Junior/Zonal
National
Competition
xxx”
11. Hence, for participation in National Games, the concerned
International Sports Federation(ISF)/Indian Olympic Association(IOA)/
National Sports Federation(NSF) recognized and funded by Ministry of
Youth Affairs & Sports/School Games Federation of India (SGFI) are the
certificate issuing authorities. In the present case, the certificate issuing
authority is not recognized by the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports.
12. Secondly, in my opinion, the petition also suffers from delay and
laches. The Information Bulletin was released way back in May/June 2020.
The last date was extended for making applications up to 31.08.2020. Now
after having participated in the selection process, when the application of the
petitioner has been rejected on the ground that it does not comply with the
stipulated criteria and after the results has been declared, the petitioner has
chosen to approach this court. In my opinion, the admission process is at a
final stage. I am told that classes have already commenced for the students
who have already taken admission on merits. It is not possible to now
tinker/change the admission list.
13. Thirdly, it is settled legal position that the terms of the brochure are
binding upon a candidate. A candidate cannot after having participated in
the selection process and after having been rejected for any reasons turn
W.P.(C) 10120/2020 Page 5 of 8
around and challenge the terms of the criteria of the admission brochure. In
the present case, the petitioner has applied under the Bulletin of Information.
He cannot after having participated in the selection process turn around and
seek to challenge the terms of the stipulated in the selection process. In this
context reference may be had to the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this
court in the case of Priyanka Chaudhary vs. National Board of
Examinations, 2016 SCC OnLine Del. 5691 where this court held as
follows:-
“11. The petitioners were well aware of the rules laid down by
the information bulletin and despite the same the petitioners
participated in the counseling process without any demur. The
petitioners have opted for confirmed seats and have taken
admission. No doubt that the petitioners are meritorious, but on
account of the application of the rules as laid down by the
information bulletin, which is clear in terms of its application,
the petitioners are clearly ineligible to participate in the second
st
round of counseling commencing from 21 October, 2016.
12. Similar view has been expressed by the co-ordinate bench
in Shikha Aggarwal (supra) wherein it is held as under:
“6. The cause of heartburn of the petitioner is that the
first round of counseling is held for the top in the merit
list to pick the stream and college/institute/hospital of
his choice and the second round is held for the next in
the merit list alongwith the opportunity to the ones
who have already participated in the first round to
change their stream in case some seats fall vacant, but
the respondent board does not envisage the
participation of the students who have already
participated in the first round to again participate in
the second round and thus robs the candidate the
opportunity to take up another stream which could be
available in the second round and was not available at
W.P.(C) 10120/2020 Page 6 of 8
the first. The contention of the counsel for the
petitioner is that the premier Institute such as AIIMS
and others give provisional admissions in the first
round leaving the window of opportunity open for them
to change their choice in the second round and thus
the same should be the procedure followed by the
respondent Board. The National Board of
Examinations administering the DNB degree has the
liberty to frame its own rules and regulations and the
rules of counseling or any other cannot be termed as
unreasonable by comparing with the rules set forth by
the AIIMS or any other body conducting examinations.
7. It is also a settled legal position that a candidate
after participating in the selection process of taking
the entrance examination and the counseling process
cannot turn around and challenge the same as the
rules and guidelines framed by the respondent-Board
were within the knowledge of the petitioner before
participating in the same and therefore, the petitioner
thus waives off her right to challenge the said
counseling procedure once having taken the said
examination
. It would be relevant here to refer to the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dhananjay
Malik v. State of Uttranchal (2008) 4 SCC 171 which
has reiterated the said legal position in the following
words:
“In the present case, as already pointed
out, the writ petitioners-respondents herein
participated in the selection process
without any demur; they are estopped from
complaining that the selection process was
not in accordance with the Rules. If they
think that the advertisement and selection
process were not in accordance with the
Rules they could have challenged the
advertisement and selection process
W.P.(C) 10120/2020 Page 7 of 8
without participating in the selection
process. This has not been done.”
(Underlining supplied)
xxx”
14. Fourthly, I may note that this sports criteria as stated in the
Information Bulletin was challenged by large number of candidates in this
court. This court has dismissed such a petition being WP(C) 4001/2020 on
28.09.2020 titled as Priyank Mehta & Ors. Vs. University of Delhi
upholding the selection process prescribed by Delhi University. I am
informed that there has been no challenge to the said judgment.
15. There is clearly no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
JAYANT NATH, J
DECEMBER 22, 2020
rb
W.P.(C) 10120/2020 Page 8 of 8