Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 1231
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
Mohd. Saad – Petitioner
Versus
Jamia Millia Islamia & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 8293/2014 & CM No.19238/2014
Decided on : 9-7-2015
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Sitab Ali Chaudhary and Mr. Gufran Ali, Advs.
Mr. Amit George, Mr. Alamgir and Ms. Zeba Khair, Advs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the criteria for granting admission in subsequent academic years and the promptness required in challenging denial of admission.
Headnote:
Admission - Master of International Business (MIB) - Asha Vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences (2012) 7 SCC 389, Aneesh D. Lawande Vs. St. of Goa (2014) 1 SCC 554, Chandigarh Administration Vs. Jasmine Kaur (2014) 10 SCC 521 - The court discussed the legal provisions and interpretations related to admission in educational institutions, including the criteria for granting admission in subsequent academic years, promptness in challenging denial of admission, and the circumstances under which a candidate may be granted admission in a subsequent academic year.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought admission to the Master of International Business (MIB) course in the academic year 2014-2015, challenging the non-grant of admission and seeking mandamus for admission. The respondent No.5 was impleaded, and the court heard both parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not fulfill the criteria for being granted admission in the subsequent academic year and also dismissed the petition on merits, as the petitioner's case lacked merit.
Issues: The issues included the petitioner's entitlement to admission in the subsequent academic year, the promptness of the petitioner's challenge, and the interpretation of the admission criteria and procedures followed by the respondents No.1 to 4 University.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner did not fulfill the criteria for being granted admission in the subsequent academic year and also found no merit in the petitioner's case.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with no costs.
1. The petitioner, an applicant for admission to the Master of International Business (MIB) course in the respondents No.1 to 4 Jamia Millia Islamia (University) in the academic year 2014-2015, in the Muslim “Other Backward Classes” (OBC) category, filed this petition on 5th November, 2014 impugning the non-grant of admission to him and grant of admission to one Mr. Ali Sher who had obtained 79.75 marks as against 80 marks scored by the petitioner, and seeking mandamus to the respondents No.1 to 4 University to admit the petitioner and allow him to attend the classes.
2. However, the said Mr. Ali Sher was not impleaded as a party to the petition. The petition came up first before the Court on 27th November, 2014 when the said Mr. Ali Sher was impleaded as respondent No.5 and notice of the petition was issued. However, no interim relief as sought by the petitioner, granted. Since then, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents No.1 to 4 University and to which a rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. Notice issued to the respondent No.5 Mr. Ali Sher has by ordinary process returned with the report that he is not available at either of the two addresses given and the notice has been affixed at one of the address and the report on the notice sent dasti is that he has refused to accept notice and the report on the notice sent by speed post is of the same having been delivered. The respondent No.5 Mr. Ali Sher is deemed to have been served. None appears on his behalf. He is proceeded against ex-parte. The counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4 University have been heard. 3. It has at the outset been enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, as to how the relief sought of directing the respondents No.1 to 4 University to admit the petitioner in the academic year 2014-2015, even if the petitioner were to be found entitled thereto, can be granted, inasmuch as the said academic year is since over.
4. The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner having approached the Court in November, 2014 itself and the petition having remained pending in this Court, the petitioner, if found entitled to the relief, must be granted the relief of admission to the same course in the current academic year 2015-2016 and cannot be left remediless.
5. It has however been enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, whether the petitioner has participated in the process for admission to the said course in the academic year 2015-2016 and if not, how can he be granted admission in the said academic year and would it not amount to allowing the petitioner to win the race for admission in the academic year 2015-2016, without the petitioner even participating in the said race. Attention of the counsel for the petitioner in this regard is invited to the dicta of the Division Benches of this Court (of which the undersigned was a member) in Rajat Goel Vs. Ministry of Human Resource & Development (Government of India) and Shivam Shresthi Vs. Delhi Technological University. It has further been put to the counsel for the petitioner that would not the seats in the said course be limited and would not directing the petitioner to be admitted to one such seat be to the deprivation of the aspirant for admission in the current academic year, inasmuch as they would be deprived of competing for the seat which would be so allotted to the petitioner.
6. The counsel for the petitioner in this regard relies on Asha Vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences (2012) 7 SCC 389 where finding the petitioner to have been wrongly denied admission in a previous year, direction for her admission in the following academic year was issued.
7. However it has been brought to the notice of the counsel for the petitioner that the said dicta of the Supreme Court was considered and dealt with by Supreme Court in Aneesh D. Lawande Vs. St. of Goa (2014) 1 SCC 554 and Chandigarh Administration Vs. Jasmine Kaur (2014) 10 SCC 52
