IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J.
Vansh Saroa - Appellant
Versus
Vice Chancellor, University Of Delhi & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 860 of 2021
Decided On : 15-02-2021
Admission - University of Delhi - BA (Hons) Political Science, BSc (Hons) Botany, BSc (Hons) Zoology, BSc (Prog.) Physical Science with Electronics - [W.P.(C)1330/2021, Dr. Rajiv Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) 2275/2010, Saubhagya Dua vs. Union of India & Anr.] - The court dismissed the petition for admission to the University of Delhi in various under-graduate courses for academic session 2020-21 in the Scheduled Castes [SC] reserved category, as the petitioner did not meet the minimum eligibility criteria for the courses and the vacancies claimed by the petitioner had arisen after the close of admissions, in line with previous court judgments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied to the University for admission in various under-graduate courses for academic session 2020-21 in the Scheduled Castes [SC] reserved category. The petitioner's claim was that he was not being admitted to the University despite vacant SC category seats.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not meet the minimum eligibility criteria for any of the courses applied for and that the vacancies claimed by the petitioner had arisen after the close of admissions. The court also referred to previous judgments to support the dismissal of the petition.
Issues: Admission eligibility and vacant seats in SC category.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner did not meet the minimum eligibility criteria for the courses and the vacancies claimed by the petitioner had arisen after the close of admissions, in line with previous court judgments.
Final Decision: The petition for admission to the University of Delhi was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Prateek Jalan, J. -
The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).
1. Mr. Ankur Chibber, learned counsel for the University of Delhi, has entered appearance pursuant to the order of this Court dated 21.01.2021.
2. Although the counter-affidavit of the Union of India has not been filed, Mr. Chibber has produced in Court a copy of an affidavit dated 15.02.2021, affirmed by Dr. Vikas Gupta, Registrar of University. The said affidavit is taken on record, and Mr. Chibber is directed to file it in the course of the day. The affidavit has already been served upon learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the fact that the petition involves a prayer for admission to the University, it has been taken up for hearing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, without waiting for the affidavit to be filed in the Registry.
3. Mr. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner applied to the University for admission in various under-graduate courses for academic session 2020-21 in the Scheduled Castes [SC] reserved category. His grievance is that he is not being admitted to the University, despite the fact that several seats remain vacant in the SC category, which the University has not filled up at all.
4. Mr. Chibber relies upon the contents of the affidavit to submit that the petitioner did not even meet the minimum eligibility criteria for the courses in which he sought admission. He further submits that, during the admission process, the University released seven cut off lists in addition to a special drive that was held in December, 2020 for admission to the remaining seats in various reserved categories. According to Mr. Chibber, the petitioner did not meet the cut off in any of these rounds. He further submits that the vacancies to which the petitioner has referred in the writ petition have arisen after the close of admissions by the University on 31.12.2020. It is his specific case that all the seats in the respective categories were filled as a result of the aforesaid rounds of the admission, but vacancies have arisen subsequent to the admission process having been concluded.
5. The aforesaid contentions of the University are detailed in paragraph 4 to 8 of the counter-affidavit.
6. It appears therefrom that the petitioner had cleared the Class XII examination with the following marks [after excluding the internal assessment marks, as provided in the Bulletin of Information]:-
"English 32.5
Chemistry 49.66666667
Biology 51
Physics 43.33333333
Mathematics 36.25"
7. The eligibility criteria of the various courses in which the petitioner had applied are mentioned in the counter-affidavit, both in the general category and after giving 5% relaxation for the SC category, were as follows:-
"a. BA (Hons) Political Science - An aggregate of 45% (45% - 5% of 45% = 42.75% for SC category) marks in the qualifying examination.
b. BSc (Hons) Botany - 55% (55%- 5% of 55% = 52.25% for SC category) or more marks in the aggregate of Physics, Chemistry, Biology/Biotechnology/Biochemistry (Practical & Theory together) and 50% (50%- 5% of 50% = 47.5% for SC category) or more marks in one compulsory language i.e. English
c. B.Sc (Hons) Zoology - 55% (55%- 5% of 55% = 52.25% for SC category) or more marks in the aggregate of Physics, Chemistry, Biology/Biotechnology/Biochemistry (Practical & Theory together) and 50% (50%- 5% of 50% = 47.5% for SC category) or more marks in one compulsory language i.e. English
d. B.Sc (Prog.) Physical Science with Electronics - 45% (45% - 5% of 45% = 42.75% for SC category) or more marks in the aggregate of Physics, Chemistry/ Computer Science, Mathematics (Practical & Theory together) and passing in one compulsory language (i.e. English)"
(Emphasis supplied.)
8. Calculating the petitioner s Class XII marks with regard to the aforesaid eligibility criteria, the petitioner s marks were computed as follows for each of the four co
The court upheld the necessity for applicants to meet established eligibility criteria for admission, ruling that vacancies arising after admission closure do not entitle unqualified candidates to ad....
The court emphasized the limited role of the judiciary in academic matters and the discretion of universities in setting eligibility criteria.
The Court found that unfilled seats in reserved categories cannot be transferred to unreserved category candidates, upholding the admission policies of the University.
Eligibility criteria for academic admissions cannot be altered after the admission process has commenced, ensuring fairness in selection.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Regulation 17(a)-2(iii) and the court's reliance on precedents to allow the issuance of the consolidated marksheet of M.Sc. (Com....
The court emphasized the importance of fulfilling subject mapping criteria for admission through CUET and recognized the discretion available to candidates in choosing subjects closely related to tho....
Mid-session admissions are impermissible; universities must adhere to established admission processes and criteria, including tie breaker rules.
Candidates must strictly adhere to eligibility criteria as outlined in the university's prospectus, and institutions are justified in cancelling admissions if these criteria are not met.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.