Back
1959 Supreme(P&H) 189
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.N.Grover, J.
Parma Nand Bhutani
Versus
University Of Delhi
Civil Writ Case No. 352 of 1959,
Decided On : OCTOBER 15, 1959
The court held that the University's rules for selection of candidates for admission to the Law Faculty were not ultra vires and that the classification of candidates based on whether they were regular students or had passed the B. A. examination privately was reasonable and not discriminatory. Additionally, the court held that the University's decision to restrict employed persons to evening classes was justified.
Headnote:
ADMISSION TO LAW FACULTY - DELHI UNIVERSITY - RULES FOR SELECTION OF CANDIDATES - Vires - DISCRIMINATION - EMPLOYMENT - DAY AND EVENING CLASSES - WRIT OF MANDAMUS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a 400-rupee-per-month salaried employee, sought admission to the day classes of the Law Faculty in LL. B. (Previous) at Delhi University. He had obtained a B. A. Degree from Punjab University under Regulation 8, which allowed candidates to appear in subjects separately. The University refused admission, citing reasons such as the petitioner's employment, lack of a character certificate from a Judge or First Class Magistrate, and non-submission of a detailed list of marks. The petitioner challenged the refusal, arguing that the rules for selection were ultra vires and discriminatory.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rules for selection were not ultra vires as they were framed by the Admission Committee in accordance with the powers granted by the University Act, Ordinances, and Statutes. The court also held that the classification of candidates based on whether they were regular students or had passed the B. A. examination privately was reasonable and not discriminatory. Additionally, the court found that the University's decision to restrict employed persons to evening classes was justified.
Issues: 1. Whether the rules for selection of candidates for admission to the Law Faculty were ultra vires the Delhi University Act, 1922, and the Ordinances and Statutes framed thereunder. 2. Whether the classification of candidates based on whether they were regular students or had passed the B. A. examination privately was discriminatory. 3. Whether the University's decision to restrict employed persons to evening classes was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the rules for selection were not ultra vires as they were framed by the Admission Committee in accordance with the powers granted by the University Act, Ordinances, and Statutes. The court reasoned that the Admission Committee had the authority to determine the principles on which admissions were to be made and that these principles did not conflict with any existing Ordinances or Statutes. 2. The court held that the classification of candidates based on whether they were regular students or had passed the B. A. examination privately was reasonable and not discriminatory. The court found that the Admission Committee had provided logical and sound reasons for giving preference to regular students, such as their better stamina, calibre, and ability to maintain better relations with the staff. 3. The court held that the University's decision to restrict employed persons to evening classes was justified. The court reasoned that it was for the University to regulate and provide for the number and type of students who would be allowed to attend day classes and those who would have to attend the evening classes.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was not admitted to the LL. B. (Previous) class.
1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in which a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction or order is sought to admit the petitioner as a student in the day classes of the Law Faculty in LL. B. (Previous).
2. The petitioner passed his Matriculation Examination as long ago as the year 1936. He then joined service and is still employed drawing a salary of Rs. 400-per mensem. He obtained the B. A. Degree of the Punjab University appearing as a private candidate under regulation 8 of that University which enables a candidate not to appear in all the subjects at one examination. In June 1959 the University of Delhi, respondent No. 1, invited applications for admission to the different classes in the Faculty of Law. After specifying the date for the receipt of application and specifying the age limit, it was stated that admission to the different classes would be made on selection from eligible candidates on a scrutiny of the applications and according to merits and where circumstances required after an interview and only up to the accommodation facilities available (Annexure E tot he affidavit of the Dean dated 11-9-1959). The petitioner submitted his application on 3rd July 1959 but when the lists of selected candidates were published between 15-7-1959 to 31-7-1959, the name of the petitioner was not included among those who were admitted. It was in these circumstances that the present petition was filed on 31st July, 1959.
3. It is common ground that the B. A. Degree of the Punjab University under Regulation 8 would entitled the petitioner to be qualified for admission tot the LL. B. Degree course and the main grievance of the petitioner is that admission could not have been refused in his case as he had obtained 52.2 percent marks which were more than the marks obtained by certain candidates who had been admitted and who had also passed the B. A. examination of the Punjab University though not under Regulation 8. The case of the petitioner is that no distinction could be made between those candidates who had passed under regulation 8 and others who had passed in the ordinary way offering all the subjects at one time.
4. On behalf of the University a number of reasons have been for not admitting the petitioner. These inter alia are-
(1) Employed persons can join the evening shift classes only and they have to file a certificate of employment in the prescribed form and such a certificate was not filed by the petitioner;
(2) The petitioner did not file a character certificate from a Judge or a first Class Magistrate as required by the "Bulletin of Information" and the "Instruction to Appellant". The certificate which was in fact filed was an Additional Settlement Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Department;
(3) The detailed list of marks obtained was not filed along with the application and only total number of marks were shown; and
(4) Rules of principles had been laid down by the Admission Committee prescribing the categories of candidates in order of preference and candidates who had obtained the B. A. Degree under regulation 8 of the Punjab University fell within the last category and consequently no candidate of that category including the petitioner was admitted. It appears that the real reason why the petitioner was not admitted was the last one mentioned above as is clear from the endorsement made on his application in red pencil (Annexure I to the Deans affidavit). None of the other reasons are mentioned there and they seem to be an afterthought. Moreover, little attention need to given to such technical pleas as the absence of proper certificate from a Judge and non-filing of the detailed list of marks because those formal defects could have been brought to the notice of the petitioner and he could have easily rectified them.
5. It has now to be seen whether the admission was lawfully refused in view of the so-called rules or principles relating to admission contained in Annexure A to t
