The result of the supplementary exam would relate back to the date when the result in the main exam was declared, as established in the Division Bench judgment in Varun Kapur's case.

JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Shakdher, J.

Preface:-

1. The common grievance which the petitioners have articulated in their respective writ petitions concerns the resistance of the University of Delhi (in short "the University") in granting them admission to the LL.M. course qua the academic session 2019-2020.

1.1. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 10629/2019 would be referred to as by his first name Mr. Umang while the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 10639/2019 will be referred likewise by his first name i.e. Mr. Praveen. Wherever the context so requires, Mr. Umang and Mr. Praveen would be collectively referred to as petitioners.

2. The petitioners aver that having qualified the Delhi University Law Entrance Test LL.M. 2019 (in short "2019 LL.M. Test") and having acquired the basic qualification i.e. a degree in LL.B. they ought to have been granted the admission by the University in the 2019 LL.M. course.

3. The University, on the other hand, opposes the relief on the sole ground that on the cut-off date i.e. 31.08.2019, the petitioners did not possess the basic qualification i.e. had not passed their LL.B. course. This objection of the University stems from the fact that the petitioners had failed in some papers and, to qualify in those papers, they were required to take the supplementary exam.

3.1. The fact that the petitioners sat for the supplementary exam qua the papers in which they had failed is not in dispute. It is also not disputed by the University that the petitioners have passed the supplementary exam. The University's objection is that though the petitioners qualified the supplementary exam, they did so after the cut-off date i.e. 31.08.2019.

3.2. It is in this context that the University takes the stand that on the cut-off date i.e. 31.08.2019 the petitioners did not possess the basic qualification i.e. did not fulfil the eligibility criteria. It is pertinent to note that the University permitted even those candidates to sit for 2019 LL.M. Test whose result qua the LL.B. course had not been declared on the date when the 2019 LL.M. Test was held.

3.3. As noted above, the petitioners who fell in this category were allowed to take the 2019 LL.M. Test which they, concededly, qualified.

3.4. Given this position, the petitioners state that the fact that they cleared their supplementary exam should put them in the same position as those who had qualified the LL.B. course on or before the cut-off date i.e. 31.08.2019.

3.5. In a nutshell, the petitioners seek to "relate" the result of their supplementary exam to the date, when, originally, the exam in the papers in which they had failed had been held.

4. It is in this background that these writ petitions have come up for adjudication. Thus, the core issue which arises for consideration is, whether, given this backdrop, it can be said that the petitioners possessed the basic qualification i.e. fulfilled the eligibility criteria on the cut-off date i.e. 31.08.2019.

5. Before I proceed further, I may briefly delineate the broad facts which concern each of the petitioners.

The petitioner in W.P. (C) 10629/2019 i.e. Mr. Umang Bharadwaj:-

6. Mr. Umang obtained admission in the 3-year LL.B. course of the University in the academic session 2016-2017. Each academic year of the LL.B. course comprises 2 semesters. Mr. Umang failed to qualify in the 4th semester and 6th semester in the following two papers respectively: LB 4033 (i.e. Competition Law) and LB 604 (i.e. Principles of Taxation Law).

6.1. Resultantly, Mr. Umang sat for the supplementary exam. The result of the exam was declared after the cut-off i.e. 31.08.2019.

6.2. In the interregnum, as noted above, Mr. Umang applied to sit in the 2019 LL.M. Test in the PWD category.

6.3. The petitioner claims, based on a certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer, Meerut that his disability has been pegged at 50%.

6.4. In the 2019 LL.M. Test, Mr. Umang attained success and was ranked 2nd in the PWD category.

6.5. The petitioner has placed on record a screenshot of the U