Full Judgment Text
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 29 October, 2014
+ LPA No.679/2014
SIDDARTH SINGH .... Appellant
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini & Mr. Virendra
Rawat, Advs.
Versus
THE VICE CHANCELLOR, DELHI
UNIVERSITY & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Saurabh Banerjee with Mr. Sumit
Nagpal, Advs. for R-1/ University of
Delhi.
Mr. Amit Khemka with Mr. Rishi
Sehgal, Advs. for R-4.
CORAM:-
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
th
1. This intra-court appeal impugns the judgment dated 10 September,
2014 of the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of W.P.(C)
No.4794/2014 preferred by the appellant / writ petitioner.
2. Notice of this appeal was issued. Considering the nature of the relief
claimed, we, with consent, heard the counsels for the appellant / writ
petitioner, respondents no.1 to 3 Delhi University and the counsel for the
LPA No.679/2014 Page 1 of 18
respondent no.4 Maharaja Agarsen College affiliated to the Delhi
University, finally, at the after notice stage itself and reserved judgment.
3. The writ petition from which this appeal arises was filed seeking
mandamus directing the respondents to grant admission to the appellant /
writ petitioner in the academic year 2014-15 in the B.Com. (Hons.)
programme / course under the Sports Quota, pleading:
(i) that the appellant / writ petitioner in the year 2014 passed his
Class-XII examination, held by the Indian Certificate of
Secondary Education (ICSE) Board as a student of Sherwood
College, Nainital in Commerce stream, securing 86% marks in
Commerce, 86% marks in Economics, 83% marks in
Accountancy as well as in the subjects of English and Hindi;
(ii) that the appellant / writ petitioner had also played several sports
including Athletics and Basketball for the school as well as at
the District, State and National Level;
(iii) that the appellant / writ petitioner applied for admission in the
respondent University by filling up the prescribed Common
Admission Form; the appellant / writ petitioner also applied
under Sports Quota and appeared for trials etc. and was selected
LPA No.679/2014 Page 2 of 18
for B.Com. (Hons.) course under Sports Quota in the
respondent no.4 College which is nearby to the appellant / writ
petitioner‟s house;
(iv) however when the appellant / writ petitioner went to deposit the
fee along with original testimonials, he was refused admission
for the reason that he did not have Mathematics in Class XII;
(v) that other Colleges of / affiliated to the respondents no.1 to 3
Delhi University including Shri Ram College of Commerce,
Ramjas College, Hans Raj College gave admission in B.Com.
(Hons.) without mathematics in Class XII;
(vi) thus the denial of admission by the respondent no.4 College to
the appellant / writ petitioner was totally discriminatory;
(vii) that the appellant / writ petition did not apply for being selected
in other colleges under the Sports Quota where the other
candidates who had secured 65% marks in Class XII got
admission in Sports Quota;
(viii) that as per the admission brochure of the Delhi University for
the year 2014, there was no condition stipulated with regard to
LPA No.679/2014 Page 3 of 18
Mathematics as one of the subjects required for admission in
B.Com. (Hons.).
4. The writ petition was entertained and a counter affidavit was filed on
behalf of the respondents no.1 to 3 Delhi University as well as on behalf of
the respondent no.4 College.
5. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the
writ petition, finding / observing / holding:
(a) that the appellant / writ petitioner could not rely on the
admission brochure published by the respondent Delhi
University for the year 2014-15 as the same was for admission
to the Four Year Undergraduate Programme (FYUP) but which
th
programme, as per the Statement dated 27 June, 2014 of the
Vice Chancellor of the Delhi University and the Resolution
th
dated 28 June, 2014 of the Academic & Executive Council of
th
the University and the Notification dated 30 June, 2014, was
rolled back;
(b) that the FYUP was scrapped prior to any admission having
been made by any college;
LPA No.679/2014 Page 4 of 18
(c) that the Schedule of Admission for the academic year 2014-15
as contained in the admission brochure relied upon by the
appellant / writ petitioner was replaced by another Schedule
th
dated 30 June, 2014;
(d) the contention of the appellant / writ petitioner that the Rules
for admission had been retrospectively changed was thus
misconceived;
(e) In fact, the Delhi University and all its colleges admitted
students in accordance with the procedure and criteria as
applicable to the year 2012-13 and not in accordance with the
FYUP admission brochure for the year 2014-15;
(f) that while Delhi University prescribes the basic eligibility
criteria, each college of the University is free to prescribe its
own additional eligibility criteria; the same is in consonance
with the principle of autonomy of private colleges in higher
education, enunciated in T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs. State of
Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481;
(g) that in the Bulletin of Information for Admission to
undergraduate courses published for the year 2012-13 and
LPA No.679/2014 Page 5 of 18
which had been made applicable for admission to the year
2014-15, Mathematics was shown as the additional eligibility
criteria in the respondent no.4 College for the B.Com. (Hons.)
programme / course.
6. Notwithstanding the well reasoned judgment as aforesaid of the
learned Single Judge, we issued notice, being prima facie of the view that
the appellant / writ petitioner, after the FYUP programme under which the
appellant / writ petitioner had applied for admission and as per which
programme the appellant / writ petitioner for admission to the respondent
no.4 College in the B.Com. (Hons.) course was not required to have
Mathematics was rolled back, and the admission criteria as applicable for
admissions to the year 2012-13 and as per which the appellant / writ
petitioner for such admission was required to have Mathematics in Class XII
was made applicable, the appellant / writ petitioner did not have the
opportunity to apply for admission to any other college and which aspect
had not been considered or perhaps not even argued before the learned
Single Judge.
7. We have as such heard the counsels on the said aspect only.
8. The undisputed position which emerges is as under:
LPA No.679/2014 Page 6 of 18
A. As per the admission brochure published by the Delhi
University for the year 2014-15, the aspirants were required to
fill up the Common Admission Form and register themselves
nd th
between 2 June, 2014 to 16 June, 2014; first admission list
th
was to be notified by the Colleges on 24 June, 2014;
admission and payment of fees in pursuance thereto was to be
th th
done between 24 to 26 June, 2014; the second admission list
th
was to be notified on 27 June, 2014 and admission and
th
payment of fee pursuant thereto were to be made between 27
th
to 30 June, 2014; the third admission list was to be notified on
st
1 July, 2014 and admissions pursuant thereto to be made
st rd
between 1 & 3 July, 2014. Though the said Schedule
th st
provides for Notification till the 10 admission list on 21 July,
2014 and admissions coupled with payment of fees in pursuant
st nd
thereto between 21 to 22 July, 2014 but need for giving the
said dates does not arise in the facts of the present case.
B. As per the said admission brochure, the appellant / writ
petitioner was eligible for admission to the B.Com. (Hons.)
LPA No.679/2014 Page 7 of 18
course in the respondent No.4 College, even without having
Mathematics as a subject in Class XII.
C. The appellant participated in the trials held by the respondent
no.4 College for admission under the Sports Quota and on the
basis of his performance, was shortlisted for admission subject
to his fulfilling the admission criteria and further subject to
verification of his testimonials.
D. Due to change in policy and as per the directions of the
University Grants Commission, the Delhi University scrapped
the FYUP programme introduced with effect from the year
2013-14 and reverted to the earlier three year course /
programme.
th
E. The Vice Chancellor of the respondent University on 27 June,
2014 issued a Statement to the said effect, further clarifying that
the admission process for the year 2014-15 shall be conducted
under the Scheme as in force for the year 2012-13.
F. The Academic Council of the respondent University also vide
th
Resolution dated 28 June, 2014 re-affirmed the aforesaid
Statement of the Vice Chancellor.
LPA No.679/2014 Page 8 of 18
th
G. The respondent University on 30 June, 2014 issued a
Notification prescribing guidelines for admission for the
academic session 2014-15 inter alia additionally providing that
st
the first cut-off list will be declared on 1 July, 2014 and
admission will start the same day and that colleges will send the
cut-off list to the office of the Registrar one day in advance.
H. The respondent University before the learned Single Judge
clarified that though as per the original schedule, the first
th
admission list was to be notified on 24 June, 2014 and
admissions pursuant thereto were to begin from same day and
th th
till 26 June, 2014, but no admissions were made till 27 June,
2014.
9. The respondent no.4 College in its counter affidavit filed before the
learned Single Judge has inter alia stated that after the aforesaid statement of
the Vice Chancellor and Resolution of the Academic Council of the
University, the students seeking admission in the respondent no.4 College
were required to fill up the college admission form and along with the said
admission form provided the bulletin of information and which clearly
mentioned the requirement of having Mathematics at the Higher Secondary
LPA No.679/2014 Page 9 of 18
level for admission to the B.Com. (Hons.) course. It was thus submitted that
the appellant / writ petitioner was well aware of the said requirement and
could not, without fulfilling the same, have expected admission in the
respondent no.4 College and the respondent no.4 College cannot be directed
to admit the appellant / writ petitioner who does not fulfill the prescribed
admission criteria. The counsel for the respondent no.4 College in this
th
regard also invites attention to the Notification dated 30 June, 2014 of the
respondent University, Clauses 7 & 8 whereof are as under:
“7. All the candidates already registered online / offline through the
University for the current academic year will now be eligible for
admission to all courses wherever they meet the eligibility criteria.
8. All candidates who have not already registered will be required to
fill the University registration form on the payment of 100 (General /
OBC) / 50 (SC/ST/PwD), alongwith the college Admission form in
case she/he meets the cut-off and qualifies for admission. This
registration made in a college will be valid in case the candidate take
admission in another college / course in the subsequent cut-off lists.”
On the basis thereof, it is argued that the appellant, after the aforesaid
change, instead of seeking admission in the respondent no.4 College and for
which he was not eligible, should have sought admission in other colleges
where he was eligible for admission.
LPA No.679/2014 Page 10 of 18
10. Per contra, the counsel for the appellant / writ petitioner has argued
that the trials for admission under the Sports Quota were held in different
th
colleges of the respondent University till 24 June, 2014 and the appellant /
writ petitioner being interested in admission only in the respondent no.4
College, which is closest to his house and where his elder brother was also
studying, did not participate in sports trials in other college viz. Shri Ram
College of Commerce, Ramjas College, Hans Raj College even though
perceived to be better than the respondent no.4 College and there was thus
th
no question of the appellant / writ petitioner, after 30 June, 2014, applying
for admission to any other college. Attention in this regard is also invited to
the rejoinder filed before the learned Single Judge to the counter affidavit of
the respondent no.4 College, specifically denying that any Bulletin of
Information as pleaded was supplied along with admission form and
pleading that there was no time or opportunity for the appellant / writ
petitioner to apply for admission under the new Scheme to any other college
for admission in which he was eligible.
11. Inspite of our repeated asking, neither the counsel for the respondent
University nor the counsel for the respondent no.4 College were able to
satisfy us as to where was the time for the appellant / writ petitioner to, after
LPA No.679/2014 Page 11 of 18
the entire admission process was revised, seek admission to any other
college for admission to which he was eligible under the Sports Quota.
12. As aforesaid, the process of filling up of the forms for admission
th
under the original time schedule was till 16 June, 2014. The contention of
the counsel for the appellant / writ petitioner, that the trials for admission in
Sports Quota under the FYUP and as per the original schedule were held till
th
24 June, 2014, has not been rebutted by the counsel of the respondent
University or the counsel for the respondent no.4 College. The admission
th th
process was in limbo from 27 June, 2014 till 30 June, 2014. As per the
th
Notification dated 30 June, 2014, the colleges were to announce the first
st
cut-off list on the very next day i.e. 1 July, 2014 and in fact the colleges
th
were required to send the cut-off list to the University by 1600 hours on 30
June, 2014 itself. The candidates, who had already registered with the
th
University as per Clause 7 (supra) of the Notification dated 30 June, 2014
were eligible for admission to the courses in the colleges for admission
whereto they met the eligibility criteria. The appellant / writ petitioner had
as aforesaid, registered for admission. Only the candidates who had not
th
registered were as per Clause 8 (supra) of the Notification dated 30 June,
2014 were given an opportunity to register and which registration could of
LPA No.679/2014 Page 12 of 18
th st
course be on 30 June, 2014 or 1 July, 2014 only. There was thus no time
for the appellant / writ petitioner to, after the revised schedule for admission
th
was notified on 30 June, 2014, apply for admission in Sports Quota in any
other College, even if it were to be believed that the appellant / writ
th st
petitioner on 30 June, 2014 or on 1 July, 2014 was made aware of the
additional eligibility criteria for admission in respondent No.4 College and
which he did not fulfill.
13. We also entertain serious doubts as to the availability with the
respondent no.4 College of the admission brochures for the year 2012-13 in
th st
sufficient quantity on 30 June, 2014 and 1 July, 2014 for being distributed
to all candidates asking for admission forms. We thus tend to believe the
version of the appellant / writ petitioner that the appellant / writ petitioner
had no knowledge of the additional criteria laid down by the respondent no.4
College of having Mathematics as a subject in Higher Secondary for
admission to B.Com. (Hons.) course.
14. However, even if it were to be believed that the appellant / writ
petitioner had such knowledge or is to be deemed to have such knowledge
th
on 30 June, 2014, the fact still remain that the appellant / writ petitioner, on
the basis of and relying upon the admission criteria published for the year
LPA No.679/2014 Page 13 of 18
2014-2015 having not participated in the sports trials in the other colleges
and for admission to which he was eligible and having not been given such
an opportunity, after the admission criteria was changed, cannot be allowed
to suffer.
15. It thus clearly is a case where owing to the mess which is the creation
of the respondent University itself, in inspite of clear signals of change in
policy, first persisting with the FYUP and at the last minute relenting. The
appellant / writ petitioner has been left without admission to any college
inspite of securing high marks making him eligible for admission in the
Sports Quota in colleges of the respondent University perceived to be the
best or in any other college. The appellant / writ petition thus faces the stark
reality of wasting one year of his academic life.
16. We find a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in
Mamta Bansal Vs. State of Punjab MANU/PH/2376/2001, in a case where
mid-term changes in the admission policy were made, to have held that the same
cannot be allowed to adversely affect the interest of candidates and the calculations
of the admission seekers correctly made for choice of subject and college on
the basis of the admission policy originally announced cannot be allowed to be thwarted and the students
taken by surprise. It was further held that the principle of equity and fairness would demand that
LPA No.679/2014 Page 14 of 18
the candidates in whose favour a right has accrued and they have exercised
their permissible options based on terms and conditions of the brochure
existing at the relevant time, should not be exposed to avoidable prejudice.
We are therefore of the view that a case for directing admission of the
appellant / writ petitioner is made out.
17. We have also considered the aspect, whether the appellant / writ petitioner would be able to cope
up with the course without having studied Mathematics in Higher Secondary and which subject his
contemporaries would have studied and whether the same comes in the way of grant of relief to the
appellant / writ petitioner. However having given our anxious consideration to the
matter, we are of the view that the same would not come in the way of grant
of relief to the appellant / wri petitioner. We say so for two reasons. It is
not as if study of Mathematics in Higher Secondary is mandatory for
admission to B.Com. (Hons.). If it was so, the same would have formed the
part of the minimum criteria for admission to the said course / programme
laid down by the respondent University . Not only so, several other colleges are not insisting
on the same. Secondly, even the respondent no.4 College, under the FYUP, was not insisting upon the
said eligibility criteria. When the appellant / writ petitioner under the FYUP could have studied B.Com.
(Hons.) without having studied Mathematics in Higher Secondary, we see no reason why we should hold
the appellant / writ petitioner ineligible merely because the respondent University has switched
LPA No.679/2014 Page 15 of 18
over from FYUP to the three year programme. Be that as it may, we advise
the appellant / writ petitioner to, by taking special coaching classes or by
other extra effort, make up the said deficiency if any.
18. The Supreme Court in Visveswaraya Technological University Vs.
Krishnendu Halder (2011) 4 SCC 606 while reiterating that the eligibility
conditions for admission being part of the academic policy are beyond the
purview of judicial review, carved out an exception for cases where such
standards / admissions are found to be arbitrary or adversely affecting the
standards fixed by the central body. The central body in the present case
being the Delhi University as aforesaid has not laid down the eligibility
criteria of having studied the subject of Mathematics in higher secondary for
admission to the B.Com. (Hons.) course, though of course has permitted the
Colleges to lay down additional criteria; however the additional criteria
insisted upon by the respondent No.4 College in the facts and circumstances
aforesaid, is found to be arbitrary. A Division Bench of this Court also in
Sangeeta Srivastava Vs. U.N. Singh AIR 1980 Delhi 27 finding callous
indifference on the part of the University and the University playing havoc
with the life and career of the young students seeking admission to the
LPA No.679/2014 Page 16 of 18
portals of the University, sustained the admission though in contravention of
the eligibility conditions prescribed.
19. We have also considered the aspect, of the academic session to have
begun in July, 2014 as per the original as well as revised schedule and nearly
three months having elapsed. Ordinarily we would have hesitated from
directing admission at this late stage. However, this year has been a year of
upheavals for admission to the respondent University and its colleges /
th
colleges affiliated to it. The Supreme Court vide judgment dated 16
October, 2014 in W.P.(C) No.853/2014 titled Varun Saini Vs. Guru Gobind
Singh Indraprastha University has extended the time for admission to the
st
said course as well as other similarly placed courses till 21 October, 2014.
There is thus really no delay. Even otherwise, the Supreme Court in Asha
Vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences (2012) 7 SCC 389 in
the context of admission to Medical Colleges, time schedule for admission
whereto has been laid down by the Supreme Court itself, held that though
the authorities cannot grant admission beyond the specifically postulated
cut-off date but where no fault is attributable to the candidate and he/she is
denied admission for arbitrary reasons, the cut-off date should not be
permitted to operate as a bar to admission of such a candidate, particularly
LPA No.679/2014 Page 17 of 18
when it would result in complete ruining of the professional career of a
meritorious candidate who was not at fault and who pursued his/her rights
and remedies as expeditiously as possible. It was further held that where
such denial of admission would subvert the ends of justice and would
frustrate the process of law, the Courts can exercise their extraordinary
jurisdiction of admitting candidates to the courses after the deadline.
20. We thus, in the peculiar facts of this case, set aside the judgment of
the learned Single Judge and allow the writ petition by directing the
respondent no.4 Maharaja Agrasen College to within one week after
verifying the testimonials of the appellant/writ petitioner, admit the
appellant/writ petitioner to the B.Com. (Hons.) programme in the academic
session 2014-15 and direct the respondent University also to enter the name
of the appellant / writ petitioner in its record as a student of the respondent
no.4 College.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
OCTOBER 29, 2014’/ „gsr‟
LPA No.679/2014 Page 18 of 18
th
% Date of decision: 29 October, 2014
+ LPA No.679/2014
SIDDARTH SINGH .... Appellant
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini & Mr. Virendra
Rawat, Advs.
Versus
THE VICE CHANCELLOR, DELHI
UNIVERSITY & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Saurabh Banerjee with Mr. Sumit
Nagpal, Advs. for R-1/ University of
Delhi.
Mr. Amit Khemka with Mr. Rishi
Sehgal, Advs. for R-4.
CORAM:-
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
th
1. This intra-court appeal impugns the judgment dated 10 September,
2014 of the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of W.P.(C)
No.4794/2014 preferred by the appellant / writ petitioner.
2. Notice of this appeal was issued. Considering the nature of the relief
claimed, we, with consent, heard the counsels for the appellant / writ
petitioner, respondents no.1 to 3 Delhi University and the counsel for the
LPA No.679/2014 Page 1 of 18
respondent no.4 Maharaja Agarsen College affiliated to the Delhi
University, finally, at the after notice stage itself and reserved judgment.
3. The writ petition from which this appeal arises was filed seeking
mandamus directing the respondents to grant admission to the appellant /
writ petitioner in the academic year 2014-15 in the B.Com. (Hons.)
programme / course under the Sports Quota, pleading:
(i) that the appellant / writ petitioner in the year 2014 passed his
Class-XII examination, held by the Indian Certificate of
Secondary Education (ICSE) Board as a student of Sherwood
College, Nainital in Commerce stream, securing 86% marks in
Commerce, 86% marks in Economics, 83% marks in
Accountancy as well as in the subjects of English and Hindi;
(ii) that the appellant / writ petitioner had also played several sports
including Athletics and Basketball for the school as well as at
the District, State and National Level;
(iii) that the appellant / writ petitioner applied for admission in the
respondent University by filling up the prescribed Common
Admission Form; the appellant / writ petitioner also applied
under Sports Quota and appeared for trials etc. and was selected
LPA No.679/2014 Page 2 of 18
for B.Com. (Hons.) course under Sports Quota in the
respondent no.4 College which is nearby to the appellant / writ
petitioner‟s house;
(iv) however when the appellant / writ petitioner went to deposit the
fee along with original testimonials, he was refused admission
for the reason that he did not have Mathematics in Class XII;
(v) that other Colleges of / affiliated to the respondents no.1 to 3
Delhi University including Shri Ram College of Commerce,
Ramjas College, Hans Raj College gave admission in B.Com.
(Hons.) without mathematics in Class XII;
(vi) thus the denial of admission by the respondent no.4 College to
the appellant / writ petitioner was totally discriminatory;
(vii) that the appellant / writ petition did not apply for being selected
in other colleges under the Sports Quota where the other
candidates who had secured 65% marks in Class XII got
admission in Sports Quota;
(viii) that as per the admission brochure of the Delhi University for
the year 2014, there was no condition stipulated with regard to
LPA No.679/2014 Page 3 of 18
Mathematics as one of the subjects required for admission in
B.Com. (Hons.).
4. The writ petition was entertained and a counter affidavit was filed on
behalf of the respondents no.1 to 3 Delhi University as well as on behalf of
the respondent no.4 College.
5. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the
writ petition, finding / observing / holding:
(a) that the appellant / writ petitioner could not rely on the
admission brochure published by the respondent Delhi
University for the year 2014-15 as the same was for admission
to the Four Year Undergraduate Programme (FYUP) but which
th
programme, as per the Statement dated 27 June, 2014 of the
Vice Chancellor of the Delhi University and the Resolution
th
dated 28 June, 2014 of the Academic & Executive Council of
th
the University and the Notification dated 30 June, 2014, was
rolled back;
(b) that the FYUP was scrapped prior to any admission having
been made by any college;
LPA No.679/2014 Page 4 of 18
(c) that the Schedule of Admission for the academic year 2014-15
as contained in the admission brochure relied upon by the
appellant / writ petitioner was replaced by another Schedule
th
dated 30 June, 2014;
(d) the contention of the appellant / writ petitioner that the Rules
for admission had been retrospectively changed was thus
misconceived;
(e) In fact, the Delhi University and all its colleges admitted
students in accordance with the procedure and criteria as
applicable to the year 2012-13 and not in accordance with the
FYUP admission brochure for the year 2014-15;
(f) that while Delhi University prescribes the basic eligibility
criteria, each college of the University is free to prescribe its
own additional eligibility criteria; the same is in consonance
with the principle of autonomy of private colleges in higher
education, enunciated in T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs. State of
Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481;
(g) that in the Bulletin of Information for Admission to
undergraduate courses published for the year 2012-13 and
LPA No.679/2014 Page 5 of 18
which had been made applicable for admission to the year
2014-15, Mathematics was shown as the additional eligibility
criteria in the respondent no.4 College for the B.Com. (Hons.)
programme / course.
6. Notwithstanding the well reasoned judgment as aforesaid of the
learned Single Judge, we issued notice, being prima facie of the view that
the appellant / writ petitioner, after the FYUP programme under which the
appellant / writ petitioner had applied for admission and as per which
programme the appellant / writ petitioner for admission to the respondent
no.4 College in the B.Com. (Hons.) course was not required to have
Mathematics was rolled back, and the admission criteria as applicable for
admissions to the year 2012-13 and as per which the appellant / writ
petitioner for such admission was required to have Mathematics in Class XII
was made applicable, the appellant / writ petitioner did not have the
opportunity to apply for admission to any other college and which aspect
had not been considered or perhaps not even argued before the learned
Single Judge.
7. We have as such heard the counsels on the said aspect only.
8. The undisputed position which emerges is as under:
LPA No.679/2014 Page 6 of 18
A. As per the admission brochure published by the Delhi
University for the year 2014-15, the aspirants were required to
fill up the Common Admission Form and register themselves
nd th
between 2 June, 2014 to 16 June, 2014; first admission list
th
was to be notified by the Colleges on 24 June, 2014;
admission and payment of fees in pursuance thereto was to be
th th
done between 24 to 26 June, 2014; the second admission list
th
was to be notified on 27 June, 2014 and admission and
th
payment of fee pursuant thereto were to be made between 27
th
to 30 June, 2014; the third admission list was to be notified on
st
1 July, 2014 and admissions pursuant thereto to be made
st rd
between 1 & 3 July, 2014. Though the said Schedule
th st
provides for Notification till the 10 admission list on 21 July,
2014 and admissions coupled with payment of fees in pursuant
st nd
thereto between 21 to 22 July, 2014 but need for giving the
said dates does not arise in the facts of the present case.
B. As per the said admission brochure, the appellant / writ
petitioner was eligible for admission to the B.Com. (Hons.)
LPA No.679/2014 Page 7 of 18
course in the respondent No.4 College, even without having
Mathematics as a subject in Class XII.
C. The appellant participated in the trials held by the respondent
no.4 College for admission under the Sports Quota and on the
basis of his performance, was shortlisted for admission subject
to his fulfilling the admission criteria and further subject to
verification of his testimonials.
D. Due to change in policy and as per the directions of the
University Grants Commission, the Delhi University scrapped
the FYUP programme introduced with effect from the year
2013-14 and reverted to the earlier three year course /
programme.
th
E. The Vice Chancellor of the respondent University on 27 June,
2014 issued a Statement to the said effect, further clarifying that
the admission process for the year 2014-15 shall be conducted
under the Scheme as in force for the year 2012-13.
F. The Academic Council of the respondent University also vide
th
Resolution dated 28 June, 2014 re-affirmed the aforesaid
Statement of the Vice Chancellor.
LPA No.679/2014 Page 8 of 18
th
G. The respondent University on 30 June, 2014 issued a
Notification prescribing guidelines for admission for the
academic session 2014-15 inter alia additionally providing that
st
the first cut-off list will be declared on 1 July, 2014 and
admission will start the same day and that colleges will send the
cut-off list to the office of the Registrar one day in advance.
H. The respondent University before the learned Single Judge
clarified that though as per the original schedule, the first
th
admission list was to be notified on 24 June, 2014 and
admissions pursuant thereto were to begin from same day and
th th
till 26 June, 2014, but no admissions were made till 27 June,
2014.
9. The respondent no.4 College in its counter affidavit filed before the
learned Single Judge has inter alia stated that after the aforesaid statement of
the Vice Chancellor and Resolution of the Academic Council of the
University, the students seeking admission in the respondent no.4 College
were required to fill up the college admission form and along with the said
admission form provided the bulletin of information and which clearly
mentioned the requirement of having Mathematics at the Higher Secondary
LPA No.679/2014 Page 9 of 18
level for admission to the B.Com. (Hons.) course. It was thus submitted that
the appellant / writ petitioner was well aware of the said requirement and
could not, without fulfilling the same, have expected admission in the
respondent no.4 College and the respondent no.4 College cannot be directed
to admit the appellant / writ petitioner who does not fulfill the prescribed
admission criteria. The counsel for the respondent no.4 College in this
th
regard also invites attention to the Notification dated 30 June, 2014 of the
respondent University, Clauses 7 & 8 whereof are as under:
“7. All the candidates already registered online / offline through the
University for the current academic year will now be eligible for
admission to all courses wherever they meet the eligibility criteria.
8. All candidates who have not already registered will be required to
fill the University registration form on the payment of 100 (General /
OBC) / 50 (SC/ST/PwD), alongwith the college Admission form in
case she/he meets the cut-off and qualifies for admission. This
registration made in a college will be valid in case the candidate take
admission in another college / course in the subsequent cut-off lists.”
On the basis thereof, it is argued that the appellant, after the aforesaid
change, instead of seeking admission in the respondent no.4 College and for
which he was not eligible, should have sought admission in other colleges
where he was eligible for admission.
LPA No.679/2014 Page 10 of 18
10. Per contra, the counsel for the appellant / writ petitioner has argued
that the trials for admission under the Sports Quota were held in different
th
colleges of the respondent University till 24 June, 2014 and the appellant /
writ petitioner being interested in admission only in the respondent no.4
College, which is closest to his house and where his elder brother was also
studying, did not participate in sports trials in other college viz. Shri Ram
College of Commerce, Ramjas College, Hans Raj College even though
perceived to be better than the respondent no.4 College and there was thus
th
no question of the appellant / writ petitioner, after 30 June, 2014, applying
for admission to any other college. Attention in this regard is also invited to
the rejoinder filed before the learned Single Judge to the counter affidavit of
the respondent no.4 College, specifically denying that any Bulletin of
Information as pleaded was supplied along with admission form and
pleading that there was no time or opportunity for the appellant / writ
petitioner to apply for admission under the new Scheme to any other college
for admission in which he was eligible.
11. Inspite of our repeated asking, neither the counsel for the respondent
University nor the counsel for the respondent no.4 College were able to
satisfy us as to where was the time for the appellant / writ petitioner to, after
LPA No.679/2014 Page 11 of 18
the entire admission process was revised, seek admission to any other
college for admission to which he was eligible under the Sports Quota.
12. As aforesaid, the process of filling up of the forms for admission
th
under the original time schedule was till 16 June, 2014. The contention of
the counsel for the appellant / writ petitioner, that the trials for admission in
Sports Quota under the FYUP and as per the original schedule were held till
th
24 June, 2014, has not been rebutted by the counsel of the respondent
University or the counsel for the respondent no.4 College. The admission
th th
process was in limbo from 27 June, 2014 till 30 June, 2014. As per the
th
Notification dated 30 June, 2014, the colleges were to announce the first
st
cut-off list on the very next day i.e. 1 July, 2014 and in fact the colleges
th
were required to send the cut-off list to the University by 1600 hours on 30
June, 2014 itself. The candidates, who had already registered with the
th
University as per Clause 7 (supra) of the Notification dated 30 June, 2014
were eligible for admission to the courses in the colleges for admission
whereto they met the eligibility criteria. The appellant / writ petitioner had
as aforesaid, registered for admission. Only the candidates who had not
th
registered were as per Clause 8 (supra) of the Notification dated 30 June,
2014 were given an opportunity to register and which registration could of
LPA No.679/2014 Page 12 of 18
th st
course be on 30 June, 2014 or 1 July, 2014 only. There was thus no time
for the appellant / writ petitioner to, after the revised schedule for admission
th
was notified on 30 June, 2014, apply for admission in Sports Quota in any
other College, even if it were to be believed that the appellant / writ
th st
petitioner on 30 June, 2014 or on 1 July, 2014 was made aware of the
additional eligibility criteria for admission in respondent No.4 College and
which he did not fulfill.
13. We also entertain serious doubts as to the availability with the
respondent no.4 College of the admission brochures for the year 2012-13 in
th st
sufficient quantity on 30 June, 2014 and 1 July, 2014 for being distributed
to all candidates asking for admission forms. We thus tend to believe the
version of the appellant / writ petitioner that the appellant / writ petitioner
had no knowledge of the additional criteria laid down by the respondent no.4
College of having Mathematics as a subject in Higher Secondary for
admission to B.Com. (Hons.) course.
14. However, even if it were to be believed that the appellant / writ
petitioner had such knowledge or is to be deemed to have such knowledge
th
on 30 June, 2014, the fact still remain that the appellant / writ petitioner, on
the basis of and relying upon the admission criteria published for the year
LPA No.679/2014 Page 13 of 18
2014-2015 having not participated in the sports trials in the other colleges
and for admission to which he was eligible and having not been given such
an opportunity, after the admission criteria was changed, cannot be allowed
to suffer.
15. It thus clearly is a case where owing to the mess which is the creation
of the respondent University itself, in inspite of clear signals of change in
policy, first persisting with the FYUP and at the last minute relenting. The
appellant / writ petitioner has been left without admission to any college
inspite of securing high marks making him eligible for admission in the
Sports Quota in colleges of the respondent University perceived to be the
best or in any other college. The appellant / writ petition thus faces the stark
reality of wasting one year of his academic life.
16. We find a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in
Mamta Bansal Vs. State of Punjab MANU/PH/2376/2001, in a case where
mid-term changes in the admission policy were made, to have held that the same
cannot be allowed to adversely affect the interest of candidates and the calculations
of the admission seekers correctly made for choice of subject and college on
the basis of the admission policy originally announced cannot be allowed to be thwarted and the students
taken by surprise. It was further held that the principle of equity and fairness would demand that
LPA No.679/2014 Page 14 of 18
the candidates in whose favour a right has accrued and they have exercised
their permissible options based on terms and conditions of the brochure
existing at the relevant time, should not be exposed to avoidable prejudice.
We are therefore of the view that a case for directing admission of the
appellant / writ petitioner is made out.
17. We have also considered the aspect, whether the appellant / writ petitioner would be able to cope
up with the course without having studied Mathematics in Higher Secondary and which subject his
contemporaries would have studied and whether the same comes in the way of grant of relief to the
appellant / writ petitioner. However having given our anxious consideration to the
matter, we are of the view that the same would not come in the way of grant
of relief to the appellant / wri petitioner. We say so for two reasons. It is
not as if study of Mathematics in Higher Secondary is mandatory for
admission to B.Com. (Hons.). If it was so, the same would have formed the
part of the minimum criteria for admission to the said course / programme
laid down by the respondent University . Not only so, several other colleges are not insisting
on the same. Secondly, even the respondent no.4 College, under the FYUP, was not insisting upon the
said eligibility criteria. When the appellant / writ petitioner under the FYUP could have studied B.Com.
(Hons.) without having studied Mathematics in Higher Secondary, we see no reason why we should hold
the appellant / writ petitioner ineligible merely because the respondent University has switched
LPA No.679/2014 Page 15 of 18
over from FYUP to the three year programme. Be that as it may, we advise
the appellant / writ petitioner to, by taking special coaching classes or by
other extra effort, make up the said deficiency if any.
18. The Supreme Court in Visveswaraya Technological University Vs.
Krishnendu Halder (2011) 4 SCC 606 while reiterating that the eligibility
conditions for admission being part of the academic policy are beyond the
purview of judicial review, carved out an exception for cases where such
standards / admissions are found to be arbitrary or adversely affecting the
standards fixed by the central body. The central body in the present case
being the Delhi University as aforesaid has not laid down the eligibility
criteria of having studied the subject of Mathematics in higher secondary for
admission to the B.Com. (Hons.) course, though of course has permitted the
Colleges to lay down additional criteria; however the additional criteria
insisted upon by the respondent No.4 College in the facts and circumstances
aforesaid, is found to be arbitrary. A Division Bench of this Court also in
Sangeeta Srivastava Vs. U.N. Singh AIR 1980 Delhi 27 finding callous
indifference on the part of the University and the University playing havoc
with the life and career of the young students seeking admission to the
LPA No.679/2014 Page 16 of 18
portals of the University, sustained the admission though in contravention of
the eligibility conditions prescribed.
19. We have also considered the aspect, of the academic session to have
begun in July, 2014 as per the original as well as revised schedule and nearly
three months having elapsed. Ordinarily we would have hesitated from
directing admission at this late stage. However, this year has been a year of
upheavals for admission to the respondent University and its colleges /
th
colleges affiliated to it. The Supreme Court vide judgment dated 16
October, 2014 in W.P.(C) No.853/2014 titled Varun Saini Vs. Guru Gobind
Singh Indraprastha University has extended the time for admission to the
st
said course as well as other similarly placed courses till 21 October, 2014.
There is thus really no delay. Even otherwise, the Supreme Court in Asha
Vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences (2012) 7 SCC 389 in
the context of admission to Medical Colleges, time schedule for admission
whereto has been laid down by the Supreme Court itself, held that though
the authorities cannot grant admission beyond the specifically postulated
cut-off date but where no fault is attributable to the candidate and he/she is
denied admission for arbitrary reasons, the cut-off date should not be
permitted to operate as a bar to admission of such a candidate, particularly
LPA No.679/2014 Page 17 of 18
when it would result in complete ruining of the professional career of a
meritorious candidate who was not at fault and who pursued his/her rights
and remedies as expeditiously as possible. It was further held that where
such denial of admission would subvert the ends of justice and would
frustrate the process of law, the Courts can exercise their extraordinary
jurisdiction of admitting candidates to the courses after the deadline.
20. We thus, in the peculiar facts of this case, set aside the judgment of
the learned Single Judge and allow the writ petition by directing the
respondent no.4 Maharaja Agrasen College to within one week after
verifying the testimonials of the appellant/writ petitioner, admit the
appellant/writ petitioner to the B.Com. (Hons.) programme in the academic
session 2014-15 and direct the respondent University also to enter the name
of the appellant / writ petitioner in its record as a student of the respondent
no.4 College.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
OCTOBER 29, 2014’/ „gsr‟
LPA No.679/2014 Page 18 of 18