The logical consequence of increased marks on re-evaluation by CBSE cannot be denied to a student till the last cut-off date for admitting students by the University has expired.

Manmohan, J:

CM APPL. 8835/2014 in W.P.(C) 4415/2014

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 4415/2014 & CM APPL. 8834/2014

1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondents to give admission to petitioner in undergraduate course of B.Com (H) in Shri Ram College of Commerce (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent-College’) for Academic Year 2014-15.

2. The relevant facts of the present case are that on 29th May, 2014 Class XII results were declared in which petitioner secured 98% marks in best of four subjects excluding English. But after including English in the best of four subjects, petitioner's percentage got reduced to 95.5%.

3. In accordance with respondent-CBSE's interlinked and graded procedure, petitioner on 31st May, 2014 applied for rechecking / verification of marks.

4. However, as his marks did not increase on rechecking, petitioner on 21st June, 2014 applied under the second stage for obtaining photocopy of the evaluated answer book of English paper.

5. As soon as photocopy of the answer book was provided, petitioner on 3rd July, 2014 applied for the third stage, i.e., re-evaluation.

6. In re-evaluation, petitioner's marks in English increased from 87% to 95%. This increased the best of four including English from 95.5% to 97.5%.

7. On 11th June, 2014, respondent-CBSE issued petitioner's revised mark sheet and on the same day, petitioner met the Principal of the respondent- College and furnished the revised mark sheet. Even though students with 97.5% had been admitted in first cut-off and students with 97.25% in the second cut-off, yet the Principal of respondent-College refused to admit the petitioner in B.Com (H).

8. Since despite representation to respondent-College and respondent-University nothing materialized, petitioner on 17th July, 2014 filed the present writ petition.

9. Mr. Sunil Goel, learned counsel for petitioner stated that action of respondent-College affiliated to respondent-University in denying admission to petitioner because of delay by respondent-CBSE in releasing result of reevaluation of petitioner's answer book of English paper was harsh, unfair, irrational, arbitrary, malafide, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

10. Mr. Goel submitted that this Court in almost identical facts in Ms. Jainidh Kaur (Through Her Next Friend and Natural Guardian, Sh. Sarabjeet Singh) Vs. St. Stephen College and Ors., W.P.(C) 4410/2010 had recorded respondent-University's undertaking that the University shall admit all students even if they produced their mark sheet after re-evaluation till the last cut-off date irrespective of availability of seats. He further stated that initially the prescribed period of admission was June 24th to July 22nd, 2014 but the same was revised to July 1st to 29th, 2014 owing to the controversy on FYUP. The orders passed by learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench in the aforesaid cases are reproduced herein-below:-

A) Order dated 7th July, 2010 passed by learned Single Judge:

"1. The petitioner had appeared for the board examination conducted by the respondent no.3 CBSE for Class XII. The petitioner being not satisfied with her result as declared applied for re-checking. On such re-checking, the marks of the petitioner were substantially increased. The petitioner in the meanwhile had applied to the respondent no.1 college falling under the respondent no.2 University of Delhi, on the basis of her then existing marks and on the basis whereof the petitioner did not qualify for admission to the respondent no.1 college. The petitioner after the result of rechecking and as per which she was / is eligible, applied for admission but which has been denied on the ground that the admissions have already closed.

2. There appear to be no rules of the respondent no.2 University of Delhi to deal with the cases of re-checking. In the absence of any provision for admission of students eligible on the basis of re