The Court emphasized that the petitioners, being aware of the admission criteria, took a chance and cannot challenge the procedure. The Court also highlighted the importance of enforcing rules and regulations, disallowing deviations, and not permitting individuals to derive advantage from their own mistakes.

1. All these petitions concern the following Clause in Annexure 1 to the Notification dated 20th May, 2015 of the respondent University of Delhi laying down the guidelines and schedule of admission to various undergraduate courses for the academic session 2015-16. “Admission to Science Courses The Basis of Selection for Mathematical Sciences / Science / Home Science courses remains unchanged. However the subjects to be included for Basis of Selection (PCM/PCB/PCMB) must have at least 70% component of theory exams (theory exam does not include internal assessment / continuous evaluation etc.) in the qualifying exam otherwise a disadvantage of 10% of the maximum marks may be levied on each such subject.”

2. The petitioners in all the petitions are seeking admission to the respondent University / its affiliate colleges on the basis of having cleared qualifying examinations held by the Boards of Examination of different States having less than 70% component of theory examination but recognized by the respondent University as equivalent to the Senior Secondary School Certificate Examination (SSSCE) (Class XII) held by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). In accordance with the Clause aforesaid, the respondent University and its affiliate colleges have levied a disadvantage of 10% on the petitioners and aggrieved wherefrom these petitions have been filed.

3. Though the grounds on which the challenge is made may be different in different petitions but having heard the petitions together and being of the view that the Clause aforesaid, unless discretionary, as has also been contended, has to be uniformly applied, it is not deemed appropriate to deal with the challenge in each petition separately depending upon the grounds taken therein. What is however important to note is that the petitioner in W.P.(C) Nos.6362/2015, 6657/2015, 6480/2015, 6658/2015, 6337/2015 & 6325/2015 were granted admission in the affiliate colleges but which admissions were subsequently cancelled, citing the aforesaid clause and stating that the admissions granted were in ignorance and violation thereof.

4. Since the admissions to the respondent University and its affiliate colleges are underway and calling for counter affidavits would have made the petitions infructuous and any interim order reserving seats for the petitioners would also have interfered with the admission process in general and affected large number of other admission seekers, with the consent of the counsels the matters were heard without counter affidavits. It may however be noticed that while issuing notice of W.P.(C) No.6362/2015 on 4th July, 2014 the operation of the letters dated 1st July, 2015 of cancellation of admission of six petitioners therein was stayed and Miranda House College, respondent therein, restrained from filling up the seats against cancelled admissions.

5. At one stage of the hearing, on enquiry being made as to the authority / power of the University to issue the Notification aforesaid, the counsels for the petitioners had contended [though no such plea / ground was / is taken in the writ petitions] that the respondent University had no authority to issue the said Notification but upon it being pointed out that in that event the entire admission process to the undergraduate courses for the academic year 2015-16 would be bad, the counsels gave up / waived the said ground and did not press the same.

6. At the same stage it was also enquired as to how these petitions, if challenging the vires of the clause aforesaid, were maintainable before this Bench and would not the same, as per Roster of this Court, be entertainable by the Division Bench. However the Registry of this Court has drawn attention to the Listing Guidelines dated 31st January, 2013 to the effect that writ petitions challenging any Policy, Scheme or Guidelines are to be treated as not constituting a challenge to the vires of the Act, Rules or Regulations.

7. The counsels for the petition