Transparency and clarity in the admission process, avoidance of false hopes for candidates, and need for improvements in the selection and admission process.

( 1 ). Rule. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.

( 2 ). The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to set aside and quash the entire selection and admission process, made by the respondents for Masters of Finance Control (MFC) and master of Business Economic (MBE) courses for the academic session 2002-03. The writ petition also seeks for issuance of a writ of mandamus to prepare a list of candidates, who have been declared successful in the written test and to conduct the group discussion and interview afresh in accordance with the relevant rules before the commencement of the academic session. Academic session commenced on 16. 7. 2002 and considerable part of the first year course is stated to have already been covered and this prayer to that extent is infructuous.

( 3 ). The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents had in the prospectus indicated total number of available seats as 30, which were likely to be raised to 40. During the selection and admission process against 23 seats in the general category, 250 candidates were called, for 5 seats of SC candidates 55 candidates were called and for 2 seats of ST candidates 21 candidates were called for general discussion and interview. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the admission list of MFC as filed by the respondents with the additional affidavit Annexure RA-1 shows that 40 students had been selected for the year 2002-03. But admission was stated to be provisional. The plea of the petitioner is that the total number of seats, for which the respondents had done the selection was 47. She submits that the respondents have acted malafide in reducing the total number of seats and thereby curtailing the total number of ST/sc seats. Ms. S. Chaudhary also submits that a higher number of candidates were called for group discussion and interview among the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribe categories in comparison to the proportionate number of candidates called for the general category. This she submits subjected unfairly the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates, to a higher degree of competitiveness and thereby reducing their chances. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that whole reduction in the total number of seats has resulted in the deprivation of the petitioner in getting a seat in scheduled caste category, despite being a deserving candidate. The total number of admissions finally done are 21 in the general category, 5 in the scheduled caste and two in the scheduled tribe.

( 4 ). Learned counsel for the University, dr. Aurbindo Ghosh explained that the past experience has shown that unfortunately in the general category, the number of candidates, who finally take admission are far less than those applying and being called for selection. A greater number of candidates in the general category are called for admission and interview, so that number of available seats are filled. Even now two seats have been left out in the general category and there are 21 vacancies filled as against 23, which were originally available. He refutes any allegation or any bias or malafides against the candidates of scheduled caste or scheduled tribes and submits that number of candidates are as per the prescribed 15% and 7. 5% respectively. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner makes a submission that since two seats are still left out unfilled out of a total number of 30 seats, petitioner could still be accommodated. Counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner had not faired well and even in the scheduled caste category was wait listed below 12. As such he would not have a chance for admission in any case. In view of the foregoing discussion, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The university of Delhi could do well to make some improvement in the admission process. The number of available seats should be clearly given. The prospectus should clearly state