Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 1117
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
PALLAVI SHARMA – Petitioner
Versus
COLLEGE OF VOCATIONAL STUDIES & ANR. – Respondents
W.P.(C) No.6398/2015
Decided On : 06-07-2015
For the Petitioners:Mr. R.K. Saini & Mr. Ayush Arora, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Adv. for University of Delhi
Admission cannot be granted based on higher marks if the applicant did not apply for the specific course as per the prescribed procedure, as it would disrupt the admission process.
Headnote:
Admission - B.A. (Vocational Courses) - [University of Delhi Act, 1922, Section 2(f), Section 9(1)(a)] - The court dismissed the petition challenging the refusal of admission to B.A. (Vocational Courses) by the respondent college and university. The court held that the petitioner's failure to apply for admission to the specific course as per the prescribed procedure cannot be overlooked, and granting admission based on higher marks would disrupt the admission process. The court cited various legal provisions and precedents to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the refusal of admission to B.A. (Vocational Courses) despite being eligible and having higher marks than the cut off.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's failure to apply for admission to the specific course as per the prescribed procedure cannot be overlooked, and granting admission based on higher marks would disrupt the admission process.
Issues: Challenge to refusal of admission to B.A. (Vocational Courses) despite eligibility and higher marks.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's failure to apply for admission to the specific course as per the prescribed procedure cannot be overlooked, and granting admission based on higher marks would disrupt the admission process.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with no costs.
CM No.11661/2015 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The CM stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.6398/2015 & CM No.11660/2015 (for stay).
3. This petition has been received post lunch on listing on urgent mentioning and has been taken up past 1630 hours.
4. In view of the urgency expressed, of the admissions closing tomorrow i.e. 7th July, 2015 by 1300 hours, the counsel for the petitioner has been heard.
5. The petition is filed impugning the action of the respondent no.1 College of Vocational Studies and the respondent no.2 University of Delhi of refusing to give admission to the petitioner “against the vacant seats of B.A. (Vocational Courses)” despite the petitioner being eligible for admission thereto and having more marks than the cut off marks (above 88%) for taking admission in the said course as per the third cut off list declared by the respondent no.1 College of Vocational Studies.
6. The counsel for the respondent no. 2 University of Delhi appears on advance notice.
7. The petitioner has been denied admission to the B.A. (Vocational Courses) for the reason of the petitioner, in the Central Registration Form known as ‘OMR’ filled by her having sought admissions only in, (i) B.A. (Hons.) Economics, (ii) B.A. (Hons.) English, (iii) B.Com and (iv) B.Com (Hons.) courses and having not sought admission in B.A. (Vocational Courses).
8. It is the case of the petitioner that she has scored 89% marks in the Commerce stream in Class-XIIth examination but has not been able to secure admission in any of the courses aforesaid for which she has applied. However on coming to know of the cut off percentage declared in the third list declared, of 88% for admission to B.A. (Vocational Courses), she wants admission thereto.
9. The counsel for the petitioner has argued, that the fact that the petitioner while filling up the OMR Form and mentioning the subjects in which she was seeking admission, did not fill up B.A. (Vocational Courses), is a mere technicality and which technicality should not be allowed to come in the way of admission of the petitioner, who till date does not have admission in any course, getting admission to the said courses. It is further argued that the non-filling of the B.A. (Vocational Courses) by the petitioner in the OMR Form is an error and for which the petitioner cannot be penalized. Strong reliance is placed on the judgment dated 22nd July, 2010 of the undersigned in W.P. (C) No.4782/2010 titled Saurabh Vs. GNCT of Delhi.
10. The counsel for the respondent no.2 University of Delhi of course, opposes the petition.
11. I am unable to find the petitioner to have made out any case whatsoever. The procedure for admission prescribed by the respondent no.2 University of Delhi having provided for the admission seekers to fill up their choice of college and choice of courses in which they want to pursue graduation, admission of a candidate who has not applied for admission to a particular college or to a particular course cannot be directed. If the same is done, it will throw the entire admission process out of gear and create a chaos. As aforesaid, it is not as if the choice of subjects was left to be exercised by the students after the cut off lists are successively declared. It is for this reason only that the applicants, in the OMR Form were required to fill the subject / courses to which they sought admission. The counsel for the respondent no.2 University of Delhi has rightly contended that it is not as if the petitioner could not have filled up the course of B.A. (Vocational Courses) in which she now claims admission. The petitioner however did not and cannot now be directed to be admitted to the said course merely because she fulfils the criteria for admission thereto.
12. Though there is undoubtedly the principle of merit being not disregarded but the inter se merit has to be seen only of those who are in the race and merit, howsoever higher of a person who has chosen not to partake in the ra
