Suvan Yaduvanshi vs University Of Delhi And Ors
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~J
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 31.07.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 03.11.2026
+ W.P. (C) 13167/2025, CM . APPL. 53931/2025
SUVAN YADUVANSHI ....Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.Velan, Mrs. Navpreet Kaur, Mr.
Prince Singh, Mr. Nilay Rai, Mr. Rashiq
Mukilan, Ms. Vanya Sharma, Mr.
Yashvardhan Chauhan, Ms. Anoopa
Tiwari, Advs.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
& ORS. ....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohinder JS Rupal, Mr. Hardik
Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra, Ms.
Tripta Sharma, Advs. Mr. Shankar
Kumar Jha, SPC, UOI
+
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
J U D G M E N T
1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking the following prayers:
“A. Issue a writ of Certiorified Mandamus or any other
appropriate Writs/Directions/Orders to quash the order passed
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:54
W.P. (C) 13167/2025 Page 1 of 24
by the 1st Respondent in REF NO.276058-SHIVAJIBHHS21-460-
CW-3-21-I-FA and consequently direct Respondent No. 1 to allot
a seat in BA (Hons) Program (History) in Shivaji College to the
petitioner in the academic year 2025-26.
B. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate
Writs/Directions/Orders to quash the condition “It is mandatory
for the candidates to appear in CUET (UG)-2025 in those
subjects in which s(he) is appearing/has passed Class XII” from
the Delhi University’s Bulletin of Information 2025, for admission
to UG programs as being Ultra Vires Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21
of the Constitution of India, 1950.…”
FACTUAL MATRIX AS PER THE PETITION
2. The petitioner is a young aspirant who passed his Senior Secondary
Examination in 2021 with 80% from the Central Board of Secondary
Education in the subjects including English, Mathematics, Physics,
Chemistry, Physical Education, Work Experience, Health & Physical
Education and General Studies, and is seeking admission for the
undergraduate program in respondent No. 1, namely University of Delhi
(“DU”) .
3. The respondent No. 2, namely the National Testing Agency (“NTA”) ,
conducts the Common University Entrance Test (“CUET”) , which is a
common exam for undergraduate/postgraduate courses at government
universities. The respondent No. 3, namely the University Grants
Commission (“UGC”) , issued a Public Notice dated 11.12.2024
whereby it was stated that UGC has constituted an expert committee to
review the conduct of CUET-UG and CUET-PE for 2025. It is stated by
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:54
W.P. (C) 13167/2025 Page 2 of 24
the petitioner that the draft proposal mentioned that candidates will be
allowed to take subjects in the CUET irrespective of the subjects opted
in twelfth standard by them.
4. Pursuant thereto, the respondent No. 2 issued an invitation, vide an
Information Bulletin dated 01.03.2025, for prospective applicants to
undertake an entrance test/CUET for all central universities for the
academic session 2025-26. The same was advertised as a single-window
opportunity to seek admission in central universities across the country.
5. Accordingly, the petitioner filled out his application form bearing
application No. 253510488025 in the first week of March, 2025. His
chosen subjects for CUET-2025, i.e. English, Geography/Geology,
History and Political Science, were different from the ones opted in
Class XII by the petitioner.
6. In May 2025, the petitioner was allotted a provisional admit card on
fulfilment of the first phase of his application. Subsequently, on
13.06.2025, the Kendriya Sainik Board issued the petitioner an
Education Concession Certificate bearing No. 370/Adm/Edn
Cert/2025/Vol-I.
7. On 04.07.2025, the respondent No. 2/NTA declared the result of the
petitioner. Based on the same, the petitioner preferred the aforesaid
application bearing No. 253510488025 in the required format, including
the preferred choice of colleges as well as the preferred choice of
programmes in those colleges. Thereafter, the petitioner was allotted
admission to Shivaji College under B.A. (Hons) Program (History) on
15.08.2025 as per the marks obtained by him in CUET 2025.
8. However, on 17.08.2025, the petitioner found out that the said seat
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:54
W.P. (C) 13167/2025 Page 3 of 24
allotted to him in Shivaji College under B.A. (Hons) Program (History)
was rejected vide impugned order bearing Ref No. 276058-SHIVAJI-
BHHS21-460-CW-3-21-I-FA for the reason of “Non-fulfilment of the
subject mapping criteria” .
9. Multiple attempts were made by the petitioner along with his father to
the respondent No. 1 for approval of verification of allotment of his son,
but to no avail. Hence, the present petition.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
10. Mr. Velan, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the
impugned rejection order dated 17.08.2025 fails to satisfy the triple test
of fairness, transparency and non-exploitation laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
AIR 2005 SC 3226 and TMA Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of
Karnataka & Ors. (2002) 8 SCC 481 . Clause 5 of the important points
of the Information Bulletin (“Clause 5”) issued by the respondent No. 1
for admission in undergraduate courses for the academic year 2025-26 is
also stated to be in violation of the petitioner’s right to education.
11. The learned counsel further submits that the said impugned rejection
order and Clause 5 are in contravention of the National Education
Policy, 2020 (“NEP 2020”) , especially Clause 4.42, and its mandate for
a more inclusive and flexible approach to higher education.
12. It is also contended that the denial of admission to the petitioner violates
the principle of merit-based admission, considering the fact that the
petitioner had secured a seat on inter-se merit in CUET-UG.
13. Reliance is placed on Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India & Ors. (2012) 6
SCC 502 to contend that the aforesaid Clause 5 fails to satisfy the tests
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:54
W.P. (C) 13167/2025 Page 4 of 24
of reasonableness and fairness since the same does not align with the
philosophy of inclusive education.
14. The judgement of University of Delhi v. Ravindra Bishnoi 2023 SCC
OnLine Del 6421 has been cited to emphasize that enforcing rigid
subject prerequisites for undergraduate courses may lead to institutions
inadvertently stifling the dynamism of young minds.
15. Furthermore, it is contended that the restriction imposed by the said
Clause 5 on the petitioner’s fundamental right to practice any profession
is not backed by any statutory law. Reliance has been placed on
Krishnan Kakkanth v. Govt. of Kerala (1997) 9 SCC 495 for the same.
16. It has also been submitted that the respondent No. 1 does not apply the
said subject mapping criteria for admission to B.A.LL.B. through
CLAT. Hence, the similarly situated students are being treated
differently without any reasonable classification.
17. Lastly, it has been contended that the rigid application of the said Clause
5 is unconstitutional, arbitrary and in defiance of public policy. Reliance
is placed on Charles K. Skaria v. C. Mathew (Dr) 1980 2 SCC 752 .
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 1/DU
18. Mr. Rupal, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 1, at the
outset, submits that as per the petitioner’s own showing, it is clear that
the petitioner did not appear in the exam for the same subjects in CUET
2025 as compared to his Class XII subjects.
19. It is contended that, under Clause 4 of the CUET Information Bulletin
for the academic year 2025-26, candidates are advised, before applying
for CUET, to read the Prospectus displayed on the website of the
University where admission is sought and to be clear about the subjects
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:54
W.P. (C) 13167/2025 Page 5 of 24
to be chosen from the list of undergraduate programmes. The Bulletin of
Information of the respondent No. 1/DU was released as early as
07.03.2025 in the public domain, and Clause 5 of the important points in
the same specifically stated that for admission in the respondent No. 1
university, a candidate must appear in the CUET-UG 2025 in those
subjects which he/she opted in Class XII. This has been further
reiterated in the said Bulletin at various other places.
20. It is submitted that the petitioner registered by filling the CSAS
admission form in June, 2025, wherein the petitioner specifically
declared that he has done the correct Class XII subject mapping with
CUET test papers. As part of the same admission form, it has been
further undertaken by the petitioner that all the information furnished by
him was correct to the best of his knowledge and, if found incorrect, his
admission may be cancelled.
21. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner has
intentionally and mala fide given an incorrect declaration that his
subjects in Class XII were the same as those in CUET.
22. Furthermore, it has been stated that the present writ petition has been
filed after the admission process for the concerned academic year was
already over, and since admissions have already been done as per the
said impugned clause, the same cannot be challenged now.
23. Reliance is placed on this Court’s judgement in W.P. (C) No.
16897/2022 titled Sonam Rawal v. University of Delhi & Ors.
24. It has also been submitted that a similar writ petition before this Court
bearing W.P. (C) No. 11686/2024 has been dismissed, stating that once
the petitioner had given the declaration that the appearance of the
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:54
W.P. (C) 13167/2025 Page 6 of 24
students is strictly in accordance with the subject mapping criteria, the
petitioner cannot be allowed admission contrary to the same.
25. It has also been stated that considering the concerned academic year has
passed and even the admission process for the next academic year is
about to close, the present writ petition has become infructuous.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
26. In the present case, the petitioner has sought admission for the academic
year 2025-26. Not only is the academic year 2025-26 long over,
academic year of 2026-27 is also underway. Hence, the petition has
become infructuous. However, since the petitioner raises an important
issue, I am proceeding to decide the same.
27. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the
documents on record.
28. Accordingly, the main issues that arise for consideration are whether the
subject mapping criteria as contained under Clause 5 of the Delhi
University’s Bulletin of Information 2025 for admission to
undergraduate programs is violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of
the Constitution and consequently whether the impugned rejection order
bearing Ref. No. 276058-SHIVAJI-BHHS21-460-CW-3-21-I-FA dated
17.08.2025 by respondent No. 1 deserves to be set aside.
29. Before examining the merits, it is apposite to examine the scope of
interference by this Court under writ jurisdiction in academic/education
matters.
Scope of interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in
academic/education matters
30. The law is crystallised on the scope of interference by the Court under
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:54
W.P. (C) 13167/2025 Page 7 of 24
Article 226 of the Constitution of India with respect to academic and
educational matters. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in All India Council
for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan, (2009) 11 SCC
726 has held as under:-
“17. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and
the role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a
question of educational policy or an issue involving
academic matter, the courts keep their hands off. If any
provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted,
applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with
education, the courts will step in. In J.P. Kulshrestha (Dr.)
v. Allahabad University [(1980) 3 SCC 418 : 1980 SCC
(L&S) 436] this Court observed: (SCC pp. 424 & 426,
paras 11 & 17)
“11. … Judges must not rush in where even educationists
fear to tread. …
*
17. … While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of
prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of
academic bodies.””
(emphasis supplied)
31. The limited scope of the Court’s interference in academic matters
related to issues that fall within the domain of the experts was further
reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in UGC v. Neha Anil Bobde,
(2013) 10 SCC 519, which reads as under:-
“31. We are of the view that, in academic matters, unless
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:54
W.P. (C) 13167/2025 Page 8 of 24
there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the
regulations or the notification issued, the courts shall keep
their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of
the experts. This Court in University of Mysore v. C.D.
Govinda Rao [AIR 1965 SC 491] , Tariq Islam v. Aligarh
Muslim University [(2001) 8 SCC 546 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 1]
and Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University
[(2008) 9 SCC 284 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 887] , has taken
the view that the court shall not generally sit in appeal over
the opinion expressed by the expert academic bodies and
normally it is wise and safe for the courts to leave the
decision of the academic experts who are more familiar
with the problem they face, than the courts generally are.
UGC as an expert body has been entrusted with the duty to
take steps as it may think fit for the determination and
maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and
research in the university. For attaining the said standards,
it is open to UGC to lay down any “qualifying criteria”,
which has a rational nexus to the object to be achieved, that
is, for maintenance of standards of teaching, examination
and research. The candidates declared eligible for
Lectureship may be considered for appointment as Assistant
Professors in universities and colleges and the standard of
such a teaching faculty has a direct nexus with the
maintenance of standards of education to be imparted to the
students of the universities and colleges. UGC has only
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:54
W.P. (C) 13167/2025 Page 9 of 24
implemented the opinion of the experts by laying down the
qualifying criteria, which cannot be considered as
arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory or violative of Article 14
of the Constitution of India.”
(emphasis supplied)
32. The aforesaid view has been reaffirmed further by this Court in Sheetal
v. Panna Dai School of Nursing, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5288 . The
relevant paragraph reads as under:
“10. … The judgments of the Supreme Court inter alia in
National Board of Examinations v. G Anand Ramamurthy,
(2006) 5 SCC 515 [paragraph 7] and W.B. Central School
Service Commission v. Abdul Halim, (2019) 18 SCC 39
[paragraph 30-31] also make it clear that the interpretation
of eligibility conditions is generally a matter left to the
academic authorities and the writ court is slow to interfere
in the absence of manifest arbitrariness or perversity. The
fact that the petitioner participated in the selection process
pursuant to this advertisement and did not ventilate the
grievances at the right time also comes in her way.”
(emphasis supplied)
33. A perusal of the aforesaid precedents would clearly conclude that there
exists a self-imposed fetter on Courts when it comes to interference in
decisions concerning education or academic matters. In view of the
same, I shall now deal with rival contentions of the parties.
Validity of the subject-mapping criteria under Clause 5 of the Delhi
University’s Bulletin of Information 2025
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:54
W.P. (C) 13167/2025 Page 10 of 24
34. The petitioner’s main contention is that Clause 5 is arbitrary and violates
Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution, as it fails the triple test
of fairness, transparency and non-exploitation and the tests of
reasonableness and fairness. It is contended that the said Clause is
contrary to NEP 2020 and its mandate for a more inclusive and flexible
approach to higher education, as well as the UGC Public Notice dated
11.12.2024, whose draft proposal allowed candidates to take different
CUET subjects irrespective of those opted in Class XII. It is further
contended that the said Clause ignores merit, since the petitioner secured
a seat on inter-se merit in CUET-UG, and that it violates his right to
education. It is also argued that the said Clause results in discrimination,
as the respondent No. 1 does not apply the subject mapping criteria for
admission to B.A. LL.B. through CLAT, thereby treating similarly
situated students differently without any reasonable classification.
35. On the contrary, the respondent No. 1 contends that Clause 5 was
published in the public domain on 07.03.2025, and that Clause 4 of the
CUET Information Bulletin itself advised candidates to read the
university's prospectus before choosing their subjects for CUET 2025. It
is further submitted that the said Clause applies uniformly to all
candidates, and that the petitioner admittedly did not appear in CUET in
the subjects he had studied in Class XII.
36. The impugned Clause 5 reads as under:-
“5. For admission to University of Delhi, it is mandatory for
the candidate to appear in CUET (UG) – 2025 in those
subjects in which s(he) is appearing/has passed Class XII.”
37. Clause 5 is an eligibility condition laid down by the respondent No. 1
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:54
W.P. (C) 13167/2025 Page 11 of 24
for admission to its undergraduate programmes. In view of Neha Anil
Bobde (supra) , this Court will not interfere with a qualifying criterion
that has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved unless there
is a clear violation of a statutory provision, regulation or notification.
Accordingly, the question that arises for consideration is whether Clause
5 violates any statute, regulation or notification and whether it has a
rational nexus to its object.
38. The objective of the said Clause as stated in paragraph 9 of the counter
Affidavit dated 04.09.2026 reads as under:-
“9. This mandatory condition has been laid down by the
experts in the academic field of the University of Delhi so to
discourage the candidates from seeking resort to study
altogether different subjects from shadow schools without
attending the classes. It is needless to mention that such
malpractice has been strongly objected to. That a student of
class XII examination while appearing in the class XII
examination in totally different streams of subject cannot
prepare for altogether different subjects in CUET
Examination which is held almost immediately after the XII
Class examination by various boards. Therefore, such
mandatory condition has rational basis and cannot be
challenged moreover when the same was in vogue even in
the last academic year 2024-2025. It is well laid down
Principle of law that the decisions of the experts on which
the academic policies of the University are based cannot be
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:54
W.P. (C) 13167/2025 Page 12 of 24
interfered with under article 226 of the Constitution of
India.”
39. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraph shows that the objective of the
clause seems to be that the candidates admitted to a programme should
have studied the foundational subjects at the Class XII level and have
been tested in those subjects. The same has a direct nexus with the
standard of teaching and eligibility of students. The said Clause applies
equally to all students/candidates, was published even before the
admission process had commenced, i.e. on 07.03.2025, and is not shown
to be capricious in any form. Therefore, the impugned clause has a
reasonable nexus with the objective it seeks to achieve. Furthermore,
whether a different criterion would be better to test a candidate’s
eligibility is a matter for the respondent No. 1 university and its experts
to decide.
40. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the UGC Public Notice dated
11.12.2024 and the draft proposal is misplaced. The notice stated that an
expert committee was constituted to review the conduct of CUET 2025
and the said proposal was merely a draft. The same does not bind the
respondent No. 1 university or can prevail over the eligibility criteria
clearly mentioned in the Information Bulletin of the concerned
university governing admissions.
41. In fact, the petitioner has not shown any binding regulation of the
respondent No. 3 that prohibits a university from prescribing a subject
mapping criterion. The respondent No. 2’s own Information Bulletin
dated 01.03.2025 directed the candidates to the concerned university’s
prospectus for programme-specific requirements. The relevant portion
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:54
W.P. (C) 13167/2025 Page 13 of 24
of the same reads as under:-
42. The aforesaid along with the subject mapping criterion in respondent
No. 1 university has been further reaffirmed in the Information Bulletin
of the respondent No. 1 university, the relevant portions of which read
as under:-
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:54
W.P. (C) 13167/2025 Page 14 of 24
43. The petitioner’s contention that Clause 5 has no statutory backing is
misplaced. The power to prescribe eligibility conditions is inherent in a
university’s power to admit students, and the petitioner has not shown
any statutory provision that denies respondent No. 1 that power. This
Court in W.P. (C) 13525/2021 titled Alkeshwari Negi v. University of
Delhi & Anr. upheld the eligibility criteria specified by the university
for postgraduate admissions, stating as under:-
“11. In any event, the petitioner’s arguments on merits also
do not appeal to me. The University has laid down the
particular manner in which 24 credits should be earned for
a candidate to be admitted to postgraduate courses.
Whether six courses of four credits each are sufficient, or
four courses of six credits should be required, is a matter of
policy. The writ court is generally loathe to interfere with
eligibility criteria laid down by academic experts, unless
they are shown to be manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable.
14. The University’s decision requiring a candidate for a
postgraduate course to have completed a certain number of
undergraduate courses in the same subject with a higher
credit level cannot be characterised as arbitrary or
unreasonable in this context.”
44. The aforesaid principle applies with equal force here. Whether a
candidate must be tested in the subjects studied in Class XII is a matter
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:54
W.P. (C) 13167/2025 Page 15 of 24
of academic policy, and Clause 5 cannot be termed to be arbitrary or
unreasonable. Any hardship to an individual candidate does not render
the criterion arbitrary.
45. The petitioner’s reliance on NEP 2020 is misplaced since the same is a
statement of policy and cannot be said to create an enforceable right to
admission irrespective of eligibility conditions.
46. This Court in Hrithik Rana v. Delhi University Sports Council, 2020
SCC OnLine Del 1822 held that a prospectus issued by the University is
binding on the students as well as the University, stating as under:-
“14 . 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 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 v. 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
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:54
W.P. (C) 13167/2025 Page 16 of 24
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 round of counseling
commencing from 21-10-2016.””
(emphasis supplied)
47. Similarly, this Court in W.P. (C) 16897/2022 titled Sonam Rawal v.
University of Delhi & Ors. held as under:-
“20. Again, a Coordinate Bench in Hritik Rana vs. Delhi
Sports Council and Ors., (2020) SCC OnLine DEL 1822,
emphasized on the binding character of the terms of
brochure as well as on the principle of estoppel that a
candidate cannot after having unsuccessfully participated in
the selection process turn around and challenge the terms of
criteria of the admission brochure…”
(emphasis supplied)
48. A perusal of Sonam Rawal (supra) shows that the Bulletin of
Information by any university has the force of law and binds the
candidate, and that no estoppel or legitimate expectation can be invoked
against it, even where the University’s own admission form carried an
inconsistent entry. It further shows that a candidate who knew the
eligibility criteria and participated without demur cannot challenge the
same after an unsuccessful outcome, and that a Court cannot direct an
institution to act contrary to its own published rules.
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:54
W.P. (C) 13167/2025 Page 17 of 24
49. The contention of the petitioner with respect to merit also fails in view
of the fact that even though the petitioner secured a seat on inter-se
merit in CUET-UG 2025, the same is a criterion for ranking students
who are eligible and does not substitute for a candidate’s eligibility.
50. The reliance placed on P.A. Inamdar (supra) and TMA Pai Foundation
(supra) by the petitioner is misplaced. The said judgments dealt with the
admission procedures of private unaided professional institutions, and
the triple test of fairness, transparency and non-exploitation was laid
down to prevent arbitrary and exploitative practices such as capitation
fees. The present case concerns a central university’s published
eligibility criterion for admission to an undergraduate programme. Even
otherwise, the impugned Clause 5 is transparent, published well in
advance, applies uniformly to all candidates and involves no element of
exploitation.
51. The reliance placed by the petitioner on Ravindra Bishnoi (supra) is
misplaced as the same is distinguishable from the present case. In the
said case, a student who had studied Geography and English Literature
was denied a seat in B.A. (Hons.) Geography after he chose History in
CUET, English Literature not being offered, relying on the “closely
related subject” exception in the University’s Bulletin. The Hon’ble
Division Bench held that the University had arbitrarily denied him that
exception without framing any criteria. The validity of subject mapping
was not in issue, and the observations on rigid prerequisites were
general and did not hold that a university cannot prescribe such a
condition. In the present case, no such exception is pleaded by the
petitioner. He does not contend that his CUET subjects were closely
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:54
W.P. (C) 13167/2025 Page 18 of 24
related to his Class XII subjects, or that any of them were unavailable in
CUET. Unlike the student in Ravindra Bishnoi (supra) , who acted in
good faith, the petitioner herein gave an incorrect declaration on subject
mapping and came to this Court only after the admission process had
ended.
52. The contention of the petitioner that similarly situated students are being
treated differently without any reasonable classification with regard to
admission to B.A. LL.B. is misplaced. Article 14 of the Constitution
prohibits unequal treatment. However, B.A. LL.B. is a different
programme with a different admission mechanism and different
academic requirements. Prescribing different eligibility conditions for
different programmes is a reasonable classification and falls within the
domain of academic bodies. Further, unlike a discipline-specific
honours programme, B.A. LL.B. is a professional degree with no
corresponding Class XII subject requirement, and the two cannot be
treated as similarly placed.
53. The petitioner’s contention that Clause 5 is arbitrary and contrary to
public policy by placing reliance on Charles K. Skaria v. C. Mathew
(1980) 2 SCC 752 is also misplaced. In the said case, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that a requirement in prospectus to attach the
diploma certificate to the application was only a directory mode of
proof, but that possession of the diploma by the cut-off date was
mandatory. The observations against a formal and strict reading of the
prospectus thus concern procedural requirements and do not dilute a
substantive eligibility condition. In the present case, the impugned
Clause 5 is a substantive condition, and the petitioner herein admittedly
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:54
W.P. (C) 13167/2025 Page 19 of 24
did not satisfy it. No procedural lapse is sought to be excused here. As
stated above, Clause 5 has a rational nexus with its object, was
published in advance and applies uniformly. Therefore, the same is
neither arbitrary nor contrary to public policy.
54. Additionally, Common Seat Allocation System (“CSAS”) admission
form of the petitioner, which included the declaration with respect to
subject mapping criteria, is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“I declare that I have done the correct class XII subject
mapping with CUET test papers.”
55. This Court in another similar matter bearing W.P.(C) 11686/2024 titled
G Jahnav Prem Sai v. University of Delhi & Anr. dismissed the
challenge to said Clause 5 on the ground that a petitioner therein gave a
declaration of compliance with the subject-mapping criteria and cannot
be allowed admission contrary to the same. The relevant extract reads as
under:-
“6. In the instant case, if the petitioner, had any grievance
with respect to clause 5 of the brochure, the petitioner ought
to have challenged the same at the relevant point of time.
Having appeared at the concerned examination and having
tendered the undertaking to abide by the eligibility
conditions as stipulated in the brochure, the petitioner
cannot be allowed to challenge the validity of clause 5 of the
brochure at this belated stage.”
56. I am of the view that the right to education under Article 21 of the
Constitution does not extend to a right to be given a seat in a programme
of one’s choice without satisfying the eligibility conditions. Therefore,
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:54
W.P. (C) 13167/2025 Page 20 of 24
for the said reasons, the subject-mapping criteria under Clause 5 of the
Delhi University’s Bulletin of Information 2025 is not violative of
Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the
challenge to said Clause 5 cannot even stand on merits.
Validity of the impugned rejection order
57. The petitioner contends that the impugned rejection order fails the triple
test of fairness, transparency and non-exploitation, violates the principle
of merit-based admission and the same is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
On the other hand, the respondent No. 1 contends that the petitioner’s
application was rejected due to non-fulfilment of the subject mapping
criteria, which the petitioner did not satisfy and had wrongly declared
that he did.
58. The impugned rejection order reads as under:-
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:54
W.P. (C) 13167/2025 Page 21 of 24
59. In view of the aforesaid finding that the impugned Clause 5 is valid and
the admitted fact that the petitioner’s admission that his CUET subjects
were different from those opted in Class XII, the impugned rejection of
the petitioner’s application rests on a valid condition and is based on
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:54
W.P. (C) 13167/2025 Page 22 of 24
facts which are not in dispute.
60. The provisional allotment of the petitioner on 15.08.2025 was subject to
verification of eligibility, and a provisional allotment does not create a
vested right to a seat. This Court in Pragya Chaudhary v. Guru Gobind
Singh Indraprastha University, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 724 held as
under:-
“8. In the present case, the emphasis laid by the counsel for
the petitioner on the correspondence resting between
respondent No. 3/CCIM and respondent No. 2/college
cannot be of much assistance to the petitioner, inasmuch as
the eligibility criteria prescribed for admission to the BAMS
Course had been clearly laid down in the admission
brochure and respondent No. 2/College was required to
strictly adhere to the same. The aforesaid eligibility criteria
was admittedly in public domain as long back as on
15.03.2011. In the present case, the petitioner had passed
her XII class in the year 2009. Therefore, when she had
applied for admission to the BAMS course, she was well
aware of her aggregate PCB percentage in class XII.
Despite the same, the petitioner took a chance, which can
only be termed as a calculated risk to apply for admission to
the aforesaid course in respondent No. 1/University.
Thereafter, respondent No. 2/college gave provisional
admission to the petitioner. But, merely because the
admission granted to the petitioner was provisional in
nature and thereafter she has been studying in respondent
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:54
W.P. (C) 13167/2025 Page 23 of 24
No. 2/college since November 2011, cannot be a ground to
sustain her admission in the light of the terms and
conditions of eligibility prescribed in the Brochure and
reiterated in the impugned letter dated 05.12.2011 issued by
respondent No. 1/University, wherein the request of
respondent No. 2/college to lower the minimum eligibility
criteria prescribed in the admission brochure for 20
students was declined.”
61. The merit in CUET is determined as per ranking among eligible
candidates, and the petitioner was not eligible as under the said Clause
5. Accordingly, the rejection order is not arbitrary or illegal and
therefore does not warrant this Court’s interference under writ
jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
62. Therefore, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned rejection
order and/or with Clause 5 of the Delhi University's Bulletin of
Information 2025. Accordingly, the petitioner is not entitled to the
reliefs sought.
63. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is dismissed, along with
pending applications, if any.
64. The document handed over in Court is taken on record.
JASMEET SINGH, J.
NOVEMBER 3, 2026/(SR)
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:54
W.P. (C) 13167/2025 Page 24 of 24