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

2023 Supreme(Del) 2620

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.
Ahsan Ali Lone – Appellant
Versus
Jamia Millia Islamia – Respondent
W.P.(C) 1167 of 2023 & CM APPL. 4498 of 2023
Decided On : 20-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Shakir Shabir, Mr. Aakashdeep Pandey, Mr. Sazid S.R. Shah and Mr. Md. Javed, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, Standing Counsel, for the Respondent-1/JMI with Mr. Sanjeet and Ms. Shweta, Advocates, for the Respondents.

Denial of admission on technical grounds, such as non-payment of fees due to circumstances beyond the student's control, may result in great injustice and is deemed improper.

Headnote:

Admission - University - JEE (Main)-2022 - 21.11.2022 - [JEE (Main)-2022, B.Tech. (Civil Engineering)] - The court found that the petitioner reported to the University before the last date, made attempts to pay the fees, and was ultimately able to complete the transaction. The denial of admission on technical grounds was deemed improper, and the court directed the University to allow the petitioner to complete the B.Tech. (Civil Engineering) with necessary arrangements to ensure attendance.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought admission to the Department of Civil Engineering at the University. Despite reporting before the deadline and attempting to pay the fees, the petitioner was denied admission due to non-payment of fees on time.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had reported to the University before the last date, made attempts to pay the fees, and was ultimately able to complete the transaction. The denial of admission on technical grounds was deemed improper.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be denied admission due to non-payment of fees on time, despite reporting before the deadline and making attempts to pay the fees.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the denial of admission on technical grounds, such as non-payment of fees due to circumstances beyond the petitioner's control, would result in great injustice to the student. The court directed the University to allow the petitioner to complete the B.Tech. (Civil Engineering) with necessary arrangements to ensure attendance.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the University was directed to allow the petitioner to complete his B.Tech. (Civil Engineering) with necessary arrangements to ensure attendance.

JUDGMENT

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)--This petition seeks a direction against respondent No.1-Jamia Millia Islamia (in short, the University) to expedite the admission process of the petitioner and allow him to attend classes in the Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Technology, Jamia Millia Islamia - respondent No. 1-University.

2. The case of the petitioner is that in June, 2022, he applied for admission in the Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Technology in respondent No.1-University. On 07.08.2022, the result of the Joint Entrance Exam JEE (Main)-2022 was declared. His name finds place in the merit list. On 21.11.2022, the petitioner on the basis of his merit position reported to respondent No.1-University for the purpose of document verification and subsequently securing an admission. A pay slip was generated by respondent No. 1-University in favour of the petitioner to deposit the prescribed fees. The fee was to be deposited through the Indian Bank-JMI branch. On 21.11.2022 i.e., on the same date, by the time the petitioner reported to the JMI-Bank branch, the branch was already closed. Therefore, fees could not be deposited. The petitioner, thereafter, tried to deposit the fees through respondent No. 1-University's online fee portal, however, he could not successfully complete the transaction due to a technical error on the online portal of respondent No. 1-University.

3. On 22.11.2022, the petitioner again reached the bank to deposit the fees but was refused by the bank as the last date for fee deposition had already expired. On 22.11.2022, the petitioner made a representation to the Dean, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, respondent No. 1-University stating his grievance. On 25.11.2023 also, he made a representation, however, on 26.12.2022, somehow the petitioner was able to make the payment of the requisite fees through the online link, which was provided to him. After depositing the fees on 27.12.2022, the petitioner visited respondent No. 1-University and brought on record the proof of payment of the fee.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the last date for completing the formality i.e., verification of the document including the payment of the fee was 21.11.2022. According to him, the petitioner reported to respondent No. 1-University well before the expiry of time and already did the verification of the document. It is on account of the non-deposition of the fees on 21.11.2022 that too because the concerned branch was closed, the admission has been denied. He, however, states that on the next date also, when the petitioner approached the branch, the payment was not accepted. He explains that the name of the petitioner finds place in the merit position. The petitioner is not through the back door. He, on the basis of his merit position, is entitled to admission and on account of non-acceptance of the requisite fee by the concerned branch, the right to admission which was already accrued on the basis of the merit, should not be denied. According to him, such an approach is highly erroneous and the substantial right of the petitioner should not be curtailed on technical reason. He, therefore, states that the petitioner be granted admission and be allowed to complete the course.

5. Respondent No.1-University, has filed its reply and has stated that the petitioner had arrived a few minutes before the lapse of the time for reporting. The petitioner did carry out the verification of the document and did submit the affidavit in the second half of 21.11.2022. However, when the petitioner was issued a pay slip for the payment of the fee, he could not able to deposit the requisite fee amount.

6. It is the case of respondent No.1-University that since the petitioner did not deposit the fee as mandated, therefore, he missed the deadline for the payment of the fees. According to the University, wh

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