Point of Law: Education Matter - Non-availability of documents in GNCTD’s record - Admission process. It is evident from impugned order that action of GNCTD was predicated only on inability of Anjali and her family to produce documents in question. Manner in which the GNCTD proceeded to cancel Anjali’s OBC certificate was unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

PRATEEK JALAN, J.

1. The petitioners in these two petitions, Ms. Tanya Mann [“Tanya”] and Ms. Anjali [“Anjali”] were both aspirants for admission to the MBBS course at Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University [“the University”] in the academic year 2019-2020, in the Delhi Region Other Backward Classes Defence [“DOBCDEF”] category.

2. By way of W.P. (C) 8301/2019, Tanya challenges the admission granted to Anjali and another candidate, Atul, in the said category. It is the contention of Tanya that the aforesaid two candidates did not qualify for OBC reservation in terms of the relevant Office Memorandum issued by the Union of India [“the Office Memorandum”]. Tanya, having secured third position on merit in the aforesaid category, claims admission in their place. The reliefs in the writ petition are framed as follows:

“(A) to quash the Seat Status Reports- MBBS dated 26-07-2019 issued and notified by respondent No. 1 through their website notified on notice board after admission counseling conducted on 26-07-2019 (ANNEXURE-P-1) pertaining to DOBCDEF category for MBBS course for the session 2019- 2020.

(B) to direct the respondent No. 1 to withdraw the seat allotment letters issued by the respondent No. 1 in respect of private Respondents during admission counseling conducted on 26-07-2019 pertaining to DOBCDEF category for MBBS course for the session 2019-2020.

(C) to direct the respondent to issue seat allotment letter to the petitioner for MBBS course in the session 2019-2020 in DOBCDEF category; and/or Any other relief as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted to the petitioner.”

3. In the aforesaid writ petition, an order dated 28.08.2019 was passed recording that Atul had given up his claim to the seat allotted to him. It was further directed as follows:

“3. Ms. Anita Sahani, Advocate, who appears on advance notice on behalf of the respondent no. 1, informs me that at present 17 seats fall vacant which includes the OBC defence category seat that fell vacant on account of withdrawal by respondent no. 4.

4. Ms. Sahani says that the respondent no. 1 University is obliged to follow the directive given in the order dated 09.05.2017, passed by the Supreme Court, in W.P. (C) No. 267/2017, titled Dar-US-Slam Educational Trust & Ors. v. Medical Council of India & Ors. Ms. Sahani, in particular, has drawn my attention to paragraph 7 of the said order.

5. Having regard to the stand taken by Ms. Sahani, the respondent No. 1 University is directed to complete the process of filling up the 17 seats (including OBC defence category seat) as directed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 9.5.2017.

6. Needless to say, the petitioner will also be considered along with other eligible candidates.”

4. Against the aforesaid order, Tanya filed LPA 556/2019. The Division Bench, by an order dated 30.08.2019, noted her contention that she had filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate [“SDM”] Narela about the certificate issued to Atul and that the candidature of Atul had been withdrawn. The Court directed the SDM, Narela to be joined as a party, and further directed him to verify the legality of the OBC certificate issued to Atul. By the aforesaid order, the Court directed that Tanya would be given provisional admission by the University, subject to verification as directed, and subject to the final outcome of the appeal. The appeal was ultimately disposed of by a judgment dated 24.10.2019, alongwith a writ petition [W.P. (C) No. 9605/2019] filed by another candidate for the same seat, Ms. Rashmi Nagia [“Rashmi”]. The Court found that Rashmi had a superior entitlement to the seat vacated by Atul, as opposed to Tanya. Consequently, the writ petition filed by Rashmi was allowed and the provisional admission granted to Tanya was cancelled. The appeal filed by Tanya against the interim order dated 28.08.2019 was dismissed.

5. In the meanwhile, Tanya and her father Mr. J.S. Mann, an Advocate,