SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Del) 1629

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

Advocates appeared:
Vijay Kumar, Advocate, Ankur Chibber, Advocate, Nikunj Arora, Advocate

Admission eligibility and vacancy filling in educational institutions.

Headnote:

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

                            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                            1
                            2
                            3
                            4
                            5
                            6
                            7
                            8
                            9
                            10
                            11
                            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                            supreme today icon
                            logo-black

                            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

                            qr

                            Scan Me!

                            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                            whatsapp-icon Back to top