IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of eligibility conditions for admission to the B.Ed Programme at JMI, specifically conditions (ii) and (iii), and how they apply to the petitioner's case.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

Facts

1. The Petitioner is a candidate who suffers from blindness/low vision. He applied for admission to the B.Ed (Urdu) course conducted by the respondent Jamia Millia Islamia ("JMI" hereinafter). The selection involved a written examination and an interview. The petitioner scored 106.75 marks in the written examination for which the cut-off marks, for persons with disabilities - to which category the petitioner belongs and in which category he had applied - were 57.75. The petitioner was called for interview. According to the petitioner, he fared well in the interview.

2. As the JMI did not communicate with the petitioner informing him that he had been selected for admission to the B.Ed (Urdu) course, the petitioner made inquiries, upon which he came to know that his admission had been rejected by the JMI. On making further enquiries, the JMI addressed an email dated 21 November 2023 to the petitioner, stating that, though he had scored 106.75 marks in the written examination, he could not be selected as he was declared "not eligible" at the stage of interview.

3. As the petitioner was not intimated any reason as to why he was considered not eligible for admission to the B.Ed (Urdu) course, the petitioner approached this Court by means of the present writ petition, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the decision of the JMI to reject his candidature for admission to the B.Ed (Urdu) course for the academic year 2023-2024 and, consequently, for a direction to the JMI to admit him to the said course.

Reason for rejection as per counter-affidavit filed by the JMI

4. Though the JMI had never condescended to inform the petitioner of the reason for his being regarded as ineligible for admission to the B.Ed (Urdu) programme, it has filed a detailed counter-affidavit by way of response to the writ petition. In the said counter-affidavit, the stand of the JMI is that the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite eligibility qualifications for admission to the B Ed (Urdu) course. Paras 4 and 8 of the counter-affidavit deserves to be reproduced in this regard. They read thus:

"4. It is submitted that the petitioner applied for admission to the Program Code B22, the name of the program is B.Ed. course, in the Department of Teacher Training and Non-Formal Education (IASE) of the Respondent University. It is further pertinent to mention that the Respondent University had prescribed the eligibilities applicable for the prospective candidates/scholar for the B.Ed. Program, that the prospective candidates should have a Bachelor's Degree in any school teaching subject with 50%, it further includes another eligibility prerequisite under the point (iii), that the prospective candidate mandatorily studied the `main school teaching subject', for two years/four semesters in graduation. The `main school teaching subject', is the one subject in which the candidate want to pursue the B. Ed. Course. It is further submitted that the candidate intending to engage as the prospective scholar in the B.Ed. course of the Respondent University is mandatorily required to choose the subject for pursuing the B.Ed. course, however the candidate cannot randomly select any subject rather, they are required to select the `main teaching subject as the subject which have been studied by the candidate in their graduation.

*****

8. It is submitted that the Respondent University responded to the mail sent by the petitioner for consideration of revaluation process of the interview conducted by the petitioner. The concerned authority of the Respondent University stated in the mail that the marks in the written exam were 106.75 and the petitioner was `ineligible' in the interview process. It is further submitted that the petitioner was ineligible even after securing the score of 106.75 marks, as the petitioner at the time of filing of his application form for the Program Code: B22 i.e. for the B.Ed. Program, had stated specifically the `main teaching subj