Back
2011 Supreme(Del) 344
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Pradeep Nandrajog and Suresh Kait, JJ.
Appellants: University of Delhi
Vs.
Respondent: Varun Kapur
[Alongwith LPA 401/2011]
LPA 400/2011
Decided On: 04.05.2011
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: M.J.S. Rupal and Aravind Varma, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv., Manish Kumar, Dheeraj Sachdeva, Advs. in LPA 400/2011 and S.C. Pathak and R.R. Jangu, Advs. in LPA 401/2011
The result of the supplementary exam should relate back to the date of the main result, and clear stipulation in the bulletin information regarding eligibility requirements is essential.
Headnote:
Admission - Bachelor of Law (LLB) course - University of Delhi - 2010-11 - [University of Delhi Act, 1922, Section 2(1)(n); University of Delhi Ordinance, 1978, Ordinance XVIII, Chapter I, Section 1] - The court allowed the provisional admission of candidates who cleared the entrance exam but had not obtained the requisite 50% marks in their final year exams by the cut-off date, deeming them eligible based on the principle that the result of the supplementary exam should relate back to the date of the main result. The court emphasized the need for clear stipulation in the bulletin information regarding eligibility requirements and upheld the view taken by the learned Single Judge, considering the public interest and the impracticality of filling the vacant seats at a later stage.
Fact of the Case:
The case pertains to the admission to the Bachelor of Law (LLB) course in the University of Delhi for the academic year 2010-11. The respondents were given provisional admission based on their performance in the entrance exam, but they had not obtained the requisite 50% marks in their final year exams by the cut-off date for eligibility submission.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the provisional admission of the respondents, deeming them eligible based on the principle that the result of the supplementary exam should relate back to the date of the main result. The court emphasized the need for clear stipulation in the bulletin information regarding eligibility requirements and upheld the view taken by the learned Single Judge, considering the public interest and the impracticality of filling the vacant seats at a later stage.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the eligibility of the respondents for admission to the LLB course, considering their performance in the entrance exam and the subsequent supplementary exams.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the result of the supplementary exam should relate back to the date of the main result, and emphasized the need for clear stipulation in the bulletin information regarding eligibility requirements. The court also considered the public interest and the impracticality of filling the vacant seats at a later stage.
Final Decision: Both appeals were dismissed, allowing the provisional admission of the respondents, without orders as to costs.
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 10.3.2001 writ petitions filed by the Respondents have been allowed and a declaration has been granted that the Respondents are entitled to a confirmation of their provisional admission and thereby permit them to take the ensuing semester end term examination as per rules.
2. Issue pertains to the admission to the Bachelor of Law (LLB) course in the University of Delhi for the academic year 2010-11, eligibility whereof as per bulletin information issued by the Appellant mandated that the candidate must have either a Graduate or a Post-Graduate degree of any recognized University or equivalent degree with at least 50% marks. Admission was as per merit obtained at an Entrance Test. Since by the date the results of the entrance exam were declared and admissions effected it was known to the University that quite a few final year results pertaining to Graduate or Post-Graduate courses are not declared, those who successfully cleared the entrance examination were given provisional admission subject to they securing the requisite 50% marks at the Graudate/Post-Graduate level.
3. Whereas Respondent Sanwal Ram was pursuing a BBA course with a University at Rajasthan and was to secure a degree in the year 2010, Respondent Varun Kapoor was pursuing a Graduate degree course from a College affiliated to the University of Delhi. Both cleared the Entrance Test and since the final result pertaining to the Graduate course which the two were undertaking had not been declared the University gave provisional admission and unfortunately for the two when their results were declared, having failed in one subject each, both of them were placed in compartment and were permitted to take a supplementary examination pertaining to the paper in question, which they took and successfully cleared, but by that time a date of significance had lapsed. The date was 31st August 2010 by which they had to submit the requisite documents pertaining to their eligibility and which meant that the two had to produce a final or a provisional degree issued by their respective University along with the mark-sheet evidencing that the two had acquired Graduate degree with at least 50% marks.
4. The University permitted both to continue attending classes and raised the issue somewhere in the month of December when the first semester end term examination was to be conducted and denied a right to both of them to sit at the examination. The University threatened to cancel their admission and the two were compelled to file the two writ petitions which have been allowed in their favour.
5. Whereas the Respondents would urge before the learned Single Judge that having cleared the supplementary examination the result thereof would relate back to the date when the main result was declared as held by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported as AIR 2001 Delhi 28 Prashant Srivastava v. CBSE, which decision followed and earlier decision dated 7.9.1999 in LPA No. 385/1999 Neha Kattyar v. CBSE and thus submitted that they would have to be deemed to be treated as eligible by the requisite date i.e. 31.8.2010 by which date the result of the main examination held had been declared. Per contra, the University would urge that as per the decision reported as 2004 (72) DRJ 428 Ankur Wahi v. UOI held to the contrary.
6. The learned Single Judge has noted that the decision in Ankur Wahi's case is by a Single Judge and whereas the two decisions relied upon by the Respondents were by a Division Bench. The learned Single Judge has given a further reason, being that, the bulletin information issued by the University did not clearly state that those who were awaiting results were required to clear the qualifying examination at the first instance.
7. There is merit in the plea sought to be urged by learned Counsel for the University that if a cut-off date is prescribed by which eligibility has to be secured, an eligibility sec
