The main legal principle established in the judgment is the importance of maintaining transparency and fairness in the admission process, and the prohibition of altering the rules once the admission process has commenced.

S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. The University of Delhi and the Kendriya Sainik Board (hereafter referred to as “the University” and “the Board”) are aggrieved by a judgment of the learned Single Judge, allowing a writ petition, preferred by the respondent (hereafter “the candidate”) and directing her admission to an appropriate seat in humanities in a Delhi college. The candidate had complained of arbitrariness in the matter of selection and admission to the quota set apart for wards of soldiers and defense personnel who suffered in combat, or were disabled during active service. This included a category of wards whose parent succumbed to combat injuries.

2. On 14 May, 1992, the Board issued a circular, whereby defense personnel who were disabled in action and were “boarded out” were recommended priority, in a quota, or reservation of seats in medical and dental colleges. This policy did not extend to admission to other courses. A Division Bench of this court had, in a judgment dated 23.09.2016, in Ananya M.S. and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Others (W.P. (C) No.7813/2016) spelt out that admission to medical and dental colleges in this quota should be confined to wards of personnel injured and also boarded out (i.e. in case the injured personnel was allowed to continue in service, his or her ward would not enjoy the facility of reservation). The candidate’s father, a commissioned officer in the Indian Army, had incurred a serious disability, in action with a militant organization, i.e. the Khalistan Commando Force, which led to a loss of his limb, sometime in 1990. The injury was classified as a battle or war injury. She secured 94.2% in her CBSE (12 Standard Board) examinations and applied under the quota set apart for injured service personnel’s wards. On 31.05.2017, the candidate applied for admission online in category II in humanities (political science, history, English and psychology). She expected that she would qualify in the cut-off list in the said stream.

3. On 03.06.2017, the candidate discovered that the Information Bulletin of the Delhi University had been amended and for the first time, the phrase “boarded out” was inserted in priority II and priority IV in CW category for admission to all under-graduate courses of Delhi University. Upon inquiry, it was revealed that these changes were made pursuant to this court’s decision in Ananya (supra). The candidate also complained that the University, omitted two categories that had been notified in the Board’s circular, for the purpose of admission to its under-graduate courses. It was contended by the candidate that she would have fallen in the last category (category VII which applies to wards of ex-servicemen); yet, since the University omitted with that category, she was left with no benefit under the Board’s policy. With these allegations, she approached this court, by a writ petition.

4. The candidate’s argument was that she had applied for her admission online on 31.05.2017. The amended Information Bulletin which was uploaded on the site was much after the initiation of the admission process in her case, i.e. on 07.06.2017. It could not therefore, apply to the facts of the instant case and even assuming that the respondents could modify the Information Bulletin, it could not be done in this current academic session year as the admission process has already started. It can at best be done only in the next academic session as if this is permitted, the prejudice suffered by the candidate would be irreparable as she did not apply elsewhere. The candidate relied on Mamta Bansal and Others v State of Punjab and Other (2002) ILR 1 P & H 558; Siddarth Singh v The Vice Chancellor, Delhi University & Others (judgment of this court dated 29.10.2015 in LPA No.679/2014).

5. The University’s position, before the single judge was that the reservation or preference was made available pursuant to guidelines prescribed by the other official respondents, i.e., the Union Government and