Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
REKHA PALLI, J.
NIKHIL SHARMA - Petitioner
Versus
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY AND ANR - Respondent
W.P.(C) 10612 of 2017
Decided On : 15-03-2018
Admission Cancellation - Education - CBSE Bye-Laws, Instruction No. 17 - The court discussed the validity of the improvement examination, the autonomy of the university in setting admission criteria, and the fairness of the cancellation of admission. The court quashed Instruction No. 17 and the Impugned Letter, directing the restoration of the petitioner's admission and permitting him to take missed examinations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a first-year student of B.Tech Electrical and Electronics Engineering, had his admission to the program at Respondent No. 2/Institute cancelled due to non-fulfillment of eligibility criteria as per the admission brochure. The petitioner sought restoration of his admission and challenged the cancellation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the university's action of nullifying the result of the petitioner's initial examination, which was valid as per CBSE, was unfair, arbitrary, and discriminatory. The court also noted that the petitioner's admission was not provisional and that the university's reliance on a provision dealing with provisional admission was misplaced. The court held that the university's admission criteria cannot be contrary to or inconsistent with the directions/rules/regulations of statutory/government bodies, including CBSE.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the improvement examination, the fairness of the admission cancellation, and the applicability of the university's admission criteria.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the university cannot nullify the result of the petitioner's initial examination based on an improvement exam and that the admission cancellation was unfair and arbitrary. The court also emphasized that the university's admission criteria cannot be contrary to or inconsistent with the directions/rules/regulations of statutory/government bodies, including CBSE.
Final Decision: The court quashed Instruction No. 17 and the Impugned Letter, directing the restoration of the petitioner's admission and permitting him to take missed examinations. The court also directed the respondents to ensure that the petitioner is able to cover up the loss of attendance by holding extra classes for him, if required.
REKHA PALLI, J.
1. The Petitioner, a first year student of B.Tech Electrical and Electronics Engineering (EEE) Program at Respondent No.2/ Institute (which is affiliated to Respondent No. 1/University), has approached this court vide the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking inter alia quashing of the letter dated 14.11.2017 issued by Respondent No. 1/University, whereby his admission to the B.Tech (EEE) Program at Respondent No. 2/Institute was cancelled. The Petitioner is also praying for a direction to the Respondents to restore his admission in Respondent No. 2/Institute in the B.Tech (EEE) Program for the Academic Session 2017-18. The Petitioner also seeks quashing of Instruction No. 17 in the admission brochure issued by Respondent No. 1/University on the grounds that it is arbitrary, vexatious, unreasonable and unconstitutional.
2. The brief facts of the case as are necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the Petitioner, a Science Stream student, appeared for his Class 12 Board Examination in March 2015. Pursuant to the Petitioner clearing the aforesaid exams, CBSE issued him a Pass Certificate and a Marksheet dated 25.05.2015, according to which he had secured 66 marks in English (Core), 58 marks in Mathematics, 63 marks in Physics, 71 marks in Chemistry and 66 marks in Physical Education. However, as the Petitioner intended to take the Joint Engineering Examination (JEE) (Main), he was desirous of improving his performance in Mathematics, Chemistry and English (Core). Accordingly, he applied for an Improvement Examination for the three subjects as per Clause 44.1 of the CBSE Examination Bye-Laws, which prescribes that only those candidates who had passed the board examination may re-appear for an improvement of performance in one or more subjects in the succeeding year only. Though the Petitioner was initially confirmed as a 'Private Candidate' for the same vide receipt dated 13.10.2015 issued by CBSE, in January 2016, he learnt about a notice dated 23.09.2015 issued by CBSE, according to which the students who intended to apply for the JEE (Main) in the subsequent year, had to appear for an improvement in all the subjects and not merely in the subjects of their choice.
3. In these circumstances, the Petitioner applied for an improvement in all five subjects vide his application dated 14.01.2016, pursuant to which the Petitioner appeared for the said improvement exams as a 'Private Candidate' and was issued a marksheet dated 21.05.2016 by the CBSE, in which the Petitioner secured 89 marks in English (Core), 67 marks in Mathematics, 61 marks in Physics, 71 marks in Chemistry, and 46 marks in Physical Education with FT, i.e. 'Failed in Theory in Physical Education'.
4. Upon the Petitioner not faring well in the JEE, he appeared for the Common Entrance Test (CET) conducted by Respondent No. 1/University for admission to its B.Tech Program. He also simultaneously applied for admission to the B.Tech Program at Amity University affiliated with Respondent No. 1/University and to the Gautam Buddha University for a course in Food Processing Technology. The eligibility conditions for admission in its B.Tech Program were set out in the admission brochure issued by Respondent No. 1/University for the Academic Session 2017-18 and Clause 2 thereof reads as under:-
"pass in 12th Class of 10+2 pattern of CBSE or equivalent with the minimum aggregate of 55% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics provided the candidate has passed in each subject separately. Candidate must additionally have passed English as a subject of study (code/elective/functional) in the qualifying examination."
5. Based on his marksheets for the 2015 exams and the 2016 improvement exams respectively, the Petitioner applied for admission to the B.Tech Program under the Management Quota in the Respondent No. 2/Institute. After checking all his documents, including the two marksheets, the Pe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
