Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vikas Mahajan, J.
Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Technology - Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT Delhi - Respondent
W.P.(C) 16871 of 2022
Decided On : 13-12-2022
Important Points
Subject
Education Law - Admission Procedures
Headnote
(B) Educational Administration - The court emphasized the importance of merit in admissions and that the freedom to run an institution does not include the right to fill all seats. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The institute aggrieved by a university notification regarding the counseling procedure claimed it limited student participation in subsequent admission rounds despite vacant seats, alleging a violation of their constitutional rights.
Findings of Court:
The provision in the notification was found not to interfere with the institute's right to operate, placing merit at the forefront and asserting no violation occurred under Article 19(1)(g).
Issues: The primary issues concerned the legality of the counseling procedure and the potential violation of institutional admission rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The governing principle upheld was that institutions can only admit based on merit without being guaranteed filled seats, affirming that administrative decisions must not hinder operational rights.
Result: No interim relief granted; petitioner's case lacking prima facie evidence.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. administrative orders and initial pleas. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner's challenge to admission notification. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. legal precedents concerning candidate admission rights. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. court's assessment of university's criteria. (Para 14 , 16) |
| 5. implications of merit-based admissions. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 6. decision regarding interim relief. (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT
Vikas Mahajan, J. (Oral)
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 ch
