IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J.
Aaditi Sharma & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
University Of Delhi & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 10453 of 2020
Decided On : 03-02-2021
Category Editing - University Admission - Information Bulletin - [Clause 1.13 of the Bulletin of Information, 2020-21] - The court discussed the University's policy of not permitting editing in the category of application, as provided in the Information Bulletin. The court highlighted the provisions of the Bulletin and the reasoning behind the University's decision, emphasizing that the cut-offs for admission are category-specific and allowing editing could potentially upset the earlier cut-offs.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought admission to the University of Delhi and claimed they were entitled to reservation under various special categories but applied in the general category due to lack of necessary certificates. They were not permitted to edit the category during the Special Drive for Admission, leading to their inability to avail of the reservation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the University's actions were not arbitrary or unreasonable, as the method of application was duly publicized and provisions were made for candidates without valid category certificates. The petitioners' failure to avail of the accommodations and their subsequent attempt to edit the category on the eve of the Special Drive were considered as reasons for their inability to avail of the reservation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the University's prohibition on editing the category of application was arbitrary or unreasonable, and whether the petitioners were entitled to relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the University's policy of not permitting editing in the category of application was reasonable, considering the category-specific cut-offs for admission and the potential disruption to the admission process if editing was allowed. The court also cited previous judgments supporting the University's stance on category editing.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and no relief was granted to the petitioners.
JUDGMENT
Prateek Jalan, J.
The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.
1. The petitioners were aspirants for admission to the undergraduate courses in University of Delhi ["the University"]. They have approached this Court with the grievance that they were not permitted to edit the category in which they sought to apply during the "Special Drive for Admission" held by the University in December, 2020 ["Special Drive"].
2. The petitioners applied for admission during the general admission process in August, 2020, in the General Category. They claim that they were entitled to reservation under various special categories [petitioner nos. 1 & 4 in the Economically Weaker Sections category; petitioner nos. 2 & 5 in Persons with Disabilities category; and petitioner no. 3 in the Schedule Tribes category]. However, they applied in the 'General Category' for want of the necessary certificates to establish their entitlement to the reservations in question. The petitioners were unfortunately unable to secure admission during the general admission process.
3. The University thereafter issued a notice on 12.12.2020, for a Special Drive for merit based under-graduate admissions in various reserved categories. Participation in the said Special Drive was open only to candidates in the Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe/Other Backward Classes/Economically Weaker Sections/Persons with Disability/Kashmiri Migrants/Sikh Minority categories. The persons who could not seek admission earlier or had cancelled their admission in any of the colleges' departments during any of the preceding cutoffs, and were therefore not admitted, were considered under the Special Drive. The contention of the petitioners is that they were in possession of the required certificates by the time the Special Drive was conducted but were not permitted to edit the category under which they had applied, and therefore could not avail of the Special Drive at all.
4. I have heard Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned counsel, on behalf of the petitioners, and Mr. Amit Bansal, learned Standing Counsel, on behalf of the University.
5. It has been pointed out in the counter affidavit filed by the University that all candidates were informed from the very beginning of the admission process that editing in the category of application would not be permitted. Mr. Bansal has drawn my attention to the notice dated 15.07.2020 and the press release dated 25.07.2020, which have been annexed to the petition as Annexures A-3 and A-5 respectively. In both the aforesaid notices, the University has clarified the fields in the application in which later editing would be permitted. It is clear from both these notices that no changes were to be permitted in the category of application.
6. Further, Mr. Bansal points out that in the Bulletin of Information for Admission to Under-Graduate Courses (2020-21) ["Information Bulletin"], the University had contemplated the concern of candidates who may not be in possession of the required category certificates at the time of application. To accommodate the concerns of such students, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic when they may have found it more difficult to obtain the certificates, the University specifically provided as follows:
"If the applicant does not have their SC or ST caste/tribe certificate at the time of registration/applying they may upload the acknowledgement slip of the SC or ST caste/tribe certificate application. However, at the time of admission, the applicant will have to produce the valid original SC or ST caste/tribe certificate."
7. The Information Bulletin also contains a list of documents required at the time of registration. The following note was appended to the list:
"If the applicants do not have recent / valid EWS / OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) / SC or ST Caste / Tribe certificate at the time of Registration, the applicant may upload the acknowledgement slip of application for the certificate. However, at
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the University's policy of not permitting editing in the category of application, as provided in the Information Bulletin, was reasonable and ....
Procedural adherence in university admissions is critical; applicants must comply with established rules to maintain application integrity and facilitate fair reservations.
The court held that once an applicant has submitted their category for admission, changes post-application, especially after results are declared, are impermissible to maintain orderly admissions.
The Court found that unfilled seats in reserved categories cannot be transferred to unreserved category candidates, upholding the admission policies of the University.
The case established the principle that prompt and diligent action in seeking remedies is crucial in admission-related matters, especially when faced with a defective process.
A candidate seeking admission must demonstrate diligence in pursuing remedies to secure relief; failure to do so, even in light of procedural issues, results in denial of admission rights.
No entitlement to correct category in online recruitment forms after edit window closure and exam; finality of submitted application sacrosanct for transparency and equality, preventing floodgates of....
Point of law : Grant of any relief to the petitioner, who has treated the mandatory requirement of uploading the requisite certificate in the most casual manner, would be at the cost of the students ....
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.