IMPORTANT POINT
Eligibility conditions (ii) and (iii) for admission to the B.Ed. programme should be interpreted independently, and satisfaction of either condition entitles the candidate to admission in the selected main teaching subject.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, A.C.J. (Oral)

1. Present appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent of the then High Court of Judicature at Lahore, which stands extended to the High Court of Delhi, impugns the judgment dated 06th February, 2024, wherein the learned Single Judge had set aside the decision of Jamia Millia Islamia University (`JMI/University') i.e., Appellant University to reject the Respondent's candidature for pursuing B.Ed. (Urdu) course for the academic year 2023-2024 and subsequently, directed the Appellant University to grant admission to the Respondent to B.Ed. (Urdu) programme in JMI for the academic year 2023-2024. Accordingly, the W.P. (C) 16575/2023 (`writ petition') filed by the Respondent against the Appellant University was allowed.

2. The Respondent herein who suffers from blindness, had applied for admission to the B.Ed. (Urdu) programme conducted by the Appellant University. A written test and an interview were conducted as part of the selection process. The cut-off marks for candidates with disability and candidates under general category were set by the University at 57.75 and 86.50, respectively. The Respondent scored 106.75 marks in the said written exam and subsequentially, appeared for the interview round. However, the Respondent was not selected as he was declared `not eligible' without any explanation/reasons.

2.1. Aggrieved by the opaqueness in the decision making and non- intimation of the reason as to why he was not considered eligible for admission to the said course, the Respondent had filed the said writ petition seeking quashing of the rejection of candidature of the Respondent by the Appellant University herein for admission to B.Ed. (Urdu) programme for the academic year 2023-2024 and consequently, seeking a direction to the Appellant University to grant admission to the Respondent in the said course for the said academic year.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant University states that the Respondent herein has applied for admission to B.Ed. (Urdu) programme but could only have chosen B.Ed. (History) programme, because he had pursued his graduation in B.A. (Hons.) History.

3.1. He states that since the Respondent has studied Urdu for two years/ four semesters during his graduation in B.A. (Hons.) History, therefore, the eligibility criteria stipulated in condition (ii) for admission to B.Ed. programme, as prescribed in the JMI Prospectus 2023-2024 (`prospectus') is satisfied. However, there is a dispute regarding fulfilment of condition (iii) which reads as under:

3.2. He states that the learned Single Judge has erroneously held that the Appellant University had raised a new ground orally that in view of the eligibility condition (iii), Respondent ought to have selected History as his main teaching subject and the same was not pleaded in its counter affidavit filed in the writ proceedings. In this regard, he contends that it was categorically stated in the paragraph nos. 4 and 8 of the said counter affidavit that it is mandatory for the prospective candidate to choose the main teaching subject as the subject, which has been studied/pursued in the graduation.

3.3. He states that finding by the learned Single Judge that instead of the indefinite article `a', article `the' should have been used in condition (iii), is a hyper-technical interpretation. He states that the intention of the Appellant University is that a prospective candidate, at the time of applying for the B.Ed. programme in JMI, can `only' choose a main teaching subject, which has been pursued by the prospective candidate in its graduation degree as well.

"Bachelor's (Hons.) Degree in any school teaching subject as shown in annexure-II will be considered as a main teaching subject."

He further states that the aforesaid conditions are not alternate conditions and each condition must be fulfilled/satisfied separately.

4. In reply, learned counsel for the Respondent states that the University wants to check the proficiency of the pro