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

2022 Supreme(Del) 2188

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vikas Mahajan, J.
Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Technology (Mait) - Petitioner
Versus
Govt of NCT Delhi and Ors - Respondents
W.P.(C) 16871/2022
Decided On : 13-12-2022

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Shashank Deo Sudhi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC with Ms. Ayushi Bansal, Mr. Sanyam Suri & Ms. Arshya Singh, Advocates, Ms.Anita Sahani, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the admission procedure must ensure admissions are done strictly in accordance with merit, and the freedom to run educational institutions is not unreasonably restricted.

Headnote:

Article 19(1)(g) - Admission Procedure - [W.P.(C) 16871/2022 & CM APPL. 53436/2022] - [Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, Rule 12(8)(a) of Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018] - The court discussed the notification F.No.IPU-7/Online Counselling/2022/3118 dated 06.12.2022 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Index Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., 2021(4) Scale 184. The court analyzed the right of an institution under Article 19(1)(g) to admit students and the impact of the admission procedure on the financial loss to educational institutions. The court also examined the criterion laid down by the university to ensure admissions are done strictly in accordance with merit.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an institute affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, challenged the notification regarding the commencement of Centralized Online Registration for Special Round of Offline Counseling for Admission to various programs for the academic session 2022-23.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the impugned notification did not violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as it ensured admissions were made strictly in accordance with merit.

Issues: The issues involved the right of an institution to admit students, financial loss to educational institutions, and the impact of the admission procedure on the freedom to run educational institutions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Article 19(1)(g) and the examination of the notification and relevant legal provisions.

Final Decision: The court refused to grant any interim relief to the petitioner and listed the case for further hearing on 6th February, 2023.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Mahajan, J.

CM APPL. 53435/2022 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 16871/2022 & CM APPL. 53436/2022(for stay)

3. Issue notice.

4. Ms. Ayushi Bansal, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and 4 (Directorate of Higher Education) and Ms. Anita Sahani, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 (Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University) respectively, accept notice.

5. Counter affidavits be filed within four weeks from today.

6. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

7. Notice be issued to respondent no.3 (All India Council for Technical Education) through all modes.

8. The petitioner is an institute affiliated to the respondent no.2/Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and is aggrieved by the notification F.No.IPU-7/Online Counselling/2022/3118 dated 06.12.2022 whereby process of commencement for Centralized Online Registration for Special Round of Offline Counseling for Admission to various programmes for the academic session 2022-23 to be conducted in the University Campus, was notified.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner invites the attention of the Court to Clause 7 of the aforesaid notification to contend that the respondent/university has adopted a wrong procedure of counseling by sticking to cut-off ranks of the earlier rounds of Online Counseling of the respective colleges. The said Clause 7 of the notification reads as under:-

    “7. The conduct of Special Round of Offline Counseling is to facilitate those candidates only who for certain reasons have not able to get admission in the Online counselling Process held so far. During the Special Round of Offline Counselling, the University shall ensure that allotment of seat in respective programme in a college is purely on merit basis and in accordance with the CUT OFF rank determined through Online Counselling the respective programme of respective college to ensure NO rank violation with respect to admitted candidates.”

10. He further submits that such an action of the respondent/university in not allowing all the students to participate in the Special Round of Offline Counseling despite the petitioner/college having numerous vacant seats in various streams/branches of different programmes, is arbitrary and violative of the Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Index Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., 2021(4) Scale 184, to contend that it is the right of an institution under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India to admit students and in case the seats under various programmes remain vacant it results into huge financial loss to the educational institutions like petitioner. Reference was made to paragraphs 5 and 25 of the said judgment which read as under:-

    “5. Rules were framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 12 of the Act. Rule 10 prescribes the process of admission to be on the basis of allotment of students who participated in the first round of counselling. The procedure for admission in second round of counselling is dealt with in Rule 11 and that of in last round (mop-up round) is found in Rule 12. The allotment of admission after completion of final round of counselling is governed by Rule 13. Amendments to the Rules were notified on 19.06.2019. The relevant amendment which is subject matter of challenge in these Appeals is Rule 12(8)(a) which reads as follows:—

“(8)(a) The vacant seats as a result of allotted candidates from MOP-UP round not taking admission or candidates resigning from admitted seat shall not be included in the college level counseling (CLC) being conducted after MOP-UP round”.

25. the right to admit students which is a part of the management's right to occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of In

      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