Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 465
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.
Samyak Bhatia - Appellant
Versus
University of Delhi - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 15885 of 2024, C.M. APPL. Nos. 1218, 12945 of 2025, CM APPL. No. 66730 of 2024
Decided On : 19-08-2025
For the Appellant : Rishi Raj Singh
For the Respondents: Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Hardik Rupal, Aishwarya Malhotra, Anshuman Sharma, Paritosh Pandey, Azaz Ahmed, Vikrant N. Goyal, Sumit Goswami, Arun Kumar Yadav
Universities must adhere to published admission criteria; OCI candidates face distinct eligibility requirements and may not assume parity with Indian nationals without explicit communication from institutions.
Headnote:(A) University Admission Criteria - Compliance with FSR Bulletin - OCI candidates are subject to specific admission criteria separate from Indian Nationals. Petitioner, an OCI cardholder, applied for B.Com (Hons.) through FSR but lacked Mathematics in Class XII, leading to admission in B.Com only. The University’s notification post-dated their communication to the petitioner misled him about his eligibility through CUET. Court held there was no procedural unfairness, as FSR guidelines clearly state Mathematics is mandatory for admission in B.Com (Hons.). (Paras 39-60)
(B) Higher Education - Institutions must adhere to their admission procedures and published criteria. No mandamus lies against the University to act contrary to its own established rules. (Paras 49-60)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner’s application for college admission details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. argument on oci status and admission process. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. university’s defense around admission criteria. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. discussion on the notification's timely release. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. critique of notification’s clarity and communication. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 6. claims of misinformation during registration. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 7. determining eligibility based on fsr bulletin. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 8. delay in claims and admission process completion. (Para 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 9. criteria against program transfer post-admission. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 10. judicial precedents cited in context. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59) |
| 11. final decision to dismiss all claims. (Para 60) |
JUDGMENT :
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.
1. The case set out in the petition is that the petitioner is a citizen of U.S.A. who holds an ‘Overseas Citizen of India’ [hereinafter ‘OCI’] card, having studied from 4th standard to 12th standard in India.
2. On 10.06.2024, petitioner submitted an online application form for admission i.n the respondent/Delhi University[hereinafter, the ‘University’] through Foreign Student’s Registry [hereinafter ‘FSR’] opting B.Com (Hons.) and B.Com. as his first and second preferences, respectively.
3. Thereafter, vide email dated 26.06.2024, while submitting documents like NOC from U.S Embassy, updated passport, etc. for admission related purpose, the petitioner also informed the University that he was awaiting his CUET results. As a matter of fact, CUET result was declared on 28.07.2024.
4. In response to petitioner’s application form, petitioner was informed that his application for B.Com. (Hons.) could not be considered as he had not studied Mathematics in Class XII. However, to secure his seat, petitioner emailed the University on 02.07.2024, requesting that his application be considered for the B.Com.
5. Subsequently, petitioner sent an e-mail dated 22.07.2024 thanking the University for offering him a seat and also sent his preference list of colleges.
6. On 14.08.2024, during a follow-up visit to the University, petitioner was informed that he had been allotted a seat in B.Com. course at Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa College, which was acknowledged by petitioner via email dated 16.08.2024. The petitioner also completed the formalities like, payment, document verification, therebyconfirming his admission.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that through email dated 29.08.2024, he made a request to the University that he should be considered for B.Com. (Hons.) as he had studied in India continuously from IV to XII standard and had studied Mathematics as a core subject up to Class XI. On 20.09.2024, the petitioner escalated this issue by sending an email to Vice-Chancellor, Registrar, and Dean of Admissions of the University.
8. Thereafter, multiple emails were exchanged between the petitioner and the University, and the latter in its last email dated 02.10.2024, informed that FSR and CUET processes are separate and advised petitioner to apply through CUET in the next academic year for taking admission in B.Com. (Hons.).
9. Mr. Rishi Raj Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is an OCI card holder who has been constrained to study B.Com. as a Foreign National, as he was not made aware by the University that he could apply like an Indian National through CUET by not publishing or communicating this crucial information at the time of admission. He submits that the petitioner had to enrol in B.Com. as a Foreign National as he had not studied Mathematics in Class XII.
10. He submits it was only on 02.10.2024 that the University finally informed the petitioner that despite being an OCI holder, he could have also applied like an Indian National through CUET.
11. He, therefore, submits th
