1991 Supreme(Del) 168

High Court Of Delhi
KANISHKA AGGARWAL - Appellant
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI - Respondent
Civil Writ 3952 of 1990
Decided On : 03/11/1991

Headnote:

ADMISSION - LAW COURSE - ELIGIBILITY - ORDER OF PREFERENCE - ESTOPPEL - UNIVERSITY OF DELHI - LL.B. 1ST YEAR COURSE - ADMISSION PROCEDURE - PROVISIONAL ADMISSION - CONFIRMATION - ROLE OF ADMISSION COMMITTEE - ESTOPPEL AGAINST UNIVERSITY - APPLICANT'S RIGHT TO CONTINUE STUDIES.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Kanishka Aggarwal, had obtained a Bachelor's Degree in Science with 54.13% marks from St. Joseph's College, Bangalore. He submitted his application along with the requisite certificates for admission to LL.B. First Year Course at Law Centre-1, University of Delhi. He deposited the fees payable at the time of admission, was allotted a roll number, assigned to a section, and issued an identity card. He started attending classes along with more than seventy other similarly situated students who had also obtained less than the qualifying marks. However, on November 6, 2020, a resolution was passed by the teachers of Law Centre-1 calling for the cancellation of all "illegal admissions" in the current academic year. The Law Courses Admission Committee held an "emergent meeting" on November 20, 2020, and decided not to confirm the provisional admissions of the affected students, including the petitioner, on the ground that their application forms and relevant original certificates had "not been placed before the sub-committee for their confirmation". The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for an order or direction quashing the cancellation of his admission and directing the respondents to confirm his admission.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner was entitled to continue his studies in the LL.B. 1st year course at Law Centre-1. The court found that the University was estopped from denying the petitioner's admission as it had represented to him that he had been provisionally admitted and had allowed him to attend classes for a significant period of time. The court also held that the University's admission procedure was flawed and that the petitioner had not been given a fair opportunity to be considered for admission.

Issues: 1. Whether the University of Delhi's order of preference for admission to the LL.B. 1st year course, which gave preference to its own graduates and to graduates with Honours degrees, was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the University's admission procedure, which involved the preparation of lists of provisionally admitted students by an Admission Committee and the subsequent confirmation of those admissions by the same committee, was valid and in accordance with the University's Ordinances? 3. Whether the University was estopped from denying the petitioner's admission, given that it had represented to him that he had been provisionally admitted and had allowed him to attend classes for a significant period of time? 4. Whether the petitioner had a right to continue his studies in the LL.B. 1st year course, despite the fact that he had not obtained the requisite percentage of marks for admission.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the University's order of preference for admission to the LL.B. 1st year course was not discriminatory or violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The court found that the order of preference was based on legitimate considerations, such as the need to ensure that students who had a strong academic background and who were likely to succeed in the LL.B. program were given priority for admission. 2. The court held that the University's admission procedure was flawed and that the petitioner had not been given a fair opportunity to be considered for admission. The court found that the Admission Committee had not followed the procedure set out in the University's Ordinances and that the petitioner had not been given an opportunity to make representations on his behalf before the committee. 3. The court held that the University was estopped from denying the petitioner's admission. The court found that the University had represented to the petitioner that he had been provisionally admitted and had allowed him to attend classes for a significant period of time. The court held that the University could not now go back on its representation and deny the petitioner's admission. 4. The court held that the petitioner had a right to continue his studies in the LL.B. 1st year course, despite the fact that he had not obtained the requisite percentage of marks for admission. The court found that the petitioner had been admitted to the course on the basis of a representation made by the University and that he had a legitimate expectation that he would be allowed to continue his studies.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the notices dated November 22, 1990 and December 5, 1990, and directed the University to allow the petitioner to continue his studies in the LL.B. 1st year course at Law Centre-1.