KARAN VAID v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI — 1995 DIGILAW 916 (DEL)

D. K. Jain ( 1 ) THE five petitioners in these writ petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge the order of the Principal, Ramjas College, Delhi, respondent No. 2 herein, in cancelling their admission to B. Com (P) course on 29 April 1995 when their final examination for the first year was to commence from2 May 1995, primarily on the ground that the said order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and that no reason for cancellation has been given in the said order. Four petitions were filed and came up for hearing on 1 May 1995 and the 5th one on 3 May 1995. While issuing notice to the respondents to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued, taking note of the submission of counsel for the petitioners that the Principal, on being approached by them, had declined to disclose the reason for cancellation of admission and that the petitioners fulfilled all the requisite qualifications for taking the annual examination with no shortage in attendance and no arrears of fees, the Court directed that the admission tickets of the petitioners would not be cancelled and they shall be allowed to take the examination but their results may be withheld. The Court, however, observed that granting of this prayer would not mean that the petitioners could claim any equity in their favour if ultimately they fail. The petitioners have since taken the examination but their results have been withheld to await decision in these petitions. ( 2 ) APART from the Ramjas College, University of Delhi has also been impleaded as respondent No. 1. ( 3 ) ON the following date appearance was put in by one counsel for both the respondents and he was granted time to file answer. ( 2 ) APART from the Ramjas College, University of Delhi has also been impleaded as respondent No. 1. ( 3 ) ON the following date appearance was put in by one counsel for both the respondents and he was granted time to file answer. When the cases came up for hearing before us on 18 July 1995, reply had not been filed by the respondents but learned counsel for them produced the applications submitted by the petitioners for admission to first year classes in academic session 1994-95 and contended that in terms of a decision taken by the Staff Council the Principal had the discretion to admit ten students and report the same to the Staff Council but admission of these five students/petitioners and another student being over and above the said discretionary quota they were admitted by the Principal on 21 April 1995 only provisionally, subject to condonation of delay in their admissions by the Standing Committee of the Delhi University. He stated that in the meeting of the Staff Council held on 28 April 1995, the action of the Principal in granting admissions in question was disapproved and it was decided that these admissions be cancelled forthwith. He urged that since the career of the students was involved, the College was trying to sort out the matter and, therefore, the cases be adjourned to await final decision in the matter by the College authorities. ( 4 ). From the admission forms so produced, it came to light that all the petitioners were granted admission to B. Com (P) course on 21 April 1995, i. e. , about a week prior to the commencement of final examination. The petitioners had secured the following marks in the qualifying higher secondary examination: ( 5 ) ADITYA Ahluwalia was transferred from B. A. (Pass) course to B. Com (P) and other four were granted fresh admissions. Admittedly the minimum cut off percentage of marks for admission to B. Com (P) course for the academic session 1994-95 in Ramjas College was 79% in best of four subjects including one language, which none of them had. Admittedly the minimum cut off percentage of marks for admission to B. Com (P) course for the academic session 1994-95 in Ramjas College was 79% in best of four subjects including one language, which none of them had. ( 6 ) AS we were not quiet satisfied with the aforesaid explanation and the relevant facts regarding the admissions in question were missing in the writ petitions, the Principal of the College was directed to state all the facts and furnish explanation with regard to each of the admissions on affidavit. The Vice-Chancellor of University of Delhi was also directed to file a separate affidavit after going into the record and complete facts of these cases. ( 7 ) IN response thereto, on behalf of the College affidavit has been filed by Its Principal Dr. Rajinder Prashad, wherein, while alleging that the petitioners have suppressed the material fact that they had been granted provisional admission only; had also made incorrect statement to the effect that they had been attending classes of B. Com (P) throughout the year, it is stated that the Governing Body of the College, which is the chief decision making body of the College, vide resolution dated 16 December 1991, had authorised the Principal of the College to admit students at his discretion in the interest of the College and further that the Staff Council, a statutory body as per Ordinance XVIII-6a of the University of Delhi In its meeting held on 30 April 1992, after discussion on the said resolution of the Governing Body had limited the discretionary quota of the Principal for admission to ten. It is stated that he (the Principal) being under tremendous pressure from the former and present student leaders/office bearers of the Delhi University students Union to admit a few students, had, with a view to maintain peace and tranqyility in College and to ward off pressure from his head, granted admissions to the petitioners on 21 April 1995, although he was aware that he was exceeding his discretionary quota of ten seats. It is further stated that these admissions were subject to ratification by the Staff Council and approval and condonation of delay by the Standing Committee of the Academic Council and the Staff Council having declined to accord its approval to his action, the admissions in question were cancelled. It is further stated that these admissions were subject to ratification by the Staff Council and approval and condonation of delay by the Standing Committee of the Academic Council and the Staff Council having declined to accord its approval to his action, the admissions in question were cancelled. Alongwith the affidavit, minutes of: (i) the Governing Body dated 16 December 1991, empowering the Principal to make some admissions in the interest of College, and (ii) of the Staff Council dated 30 April 1992 and 28 April 1995 respectively rescinding the aforesaid decision of the Governing Body and authorising the Principal to admit ten students under his discretionary power and refer the same to the Staff Council and the disapproval of the Principal s action in giving these additional admissions over and above the quota of ten have been filed. ( 8 ) A summary often discretionary admissions granted by the Principal, placed on record with the Principal s affidavit reveals that in all the ten cases, the students with marks much less than the cut off percentage have been admitted in various courses. For instance a student with marks as low as 51% has been admitted in B. A. (Hons.) Political Sc. against the cut off point of 72%. Another student with 59,2% has been admitted in B. Com (H) course against the cut off point of 83% and yet another studentwith 57. 5% marks has been admitted in B. Com (P) Course against cut off percentage of 79%. against the cut off point of 72%. Another student with 59,2% has been admitted in B. Com (H) course against the cut off point of 83% and yet another studentwith 57. 5% marks has been admitted in B. Com (P) Course against cut off percentage of 79%. ( 9 ) ON behalf of the University, affidavit has been filed by its Vice Chancellor, Professor V. R. Mehta wherein it is stated that: the rules for admission prescribed by the University do not contemplate that Principal of a college would have a discretionary quota in the matter of admissions; the Governing Body of a college or the Staff Council does not have any power to prescribe any such quota, except in respect of cases covered under the specific categories; all admissions in Colleges in respect of under-graduate courses were to be made on the basis of merit only as specified in the Circular notified by the University for admissions during the academic year 1994-95; the procedure and the rules for admission prescribed by the University are binding on the colleges and they are not free to deviate from them; during the academic year 1994-95 no admission in a college could have been made after 17 October 1994 without a specific reference to the Vice-Chancellor of the University and without his prior approval and that there was no reference from the Ramjas College to the Vice-chancellor seeking condonation of delay in any of the admissions. The Circular dated 3 July 1994, laying down the procedure for admission to B. Com (P) course and other courses has been annexed with the affidavit, which, inter alia, prescribes that all admissions had to be done strictly according to the merit on the basis of percentage of marks secured by the students in the qualifying examination. In nutshell, the stand of the University is that under its admission rules there is no provision for any institutional quota for discretionary admissions except in some specified categories. ( 10 ) THE petitioners have filed affidavits in rejoinder to the affidavit filed by the College. In nutshell, the stand of the University is that under its admission rules there is no provision for any institutional quota for discretionary admissions except in some specified categories. ( 10 ) THE petitioners have filed affidavits in rejoinder to the affidavit filed by the College. They claim that they had been attending classes in B. Com (P) course throughout the year, on the basis of written permission granted by the Principal, and state that: (i) as per the resolution dated 16 December 1991 passed by the Governing Body of the College, the Principal was authorised to make any number of admissions out of his discretionary quota, meaning thereby that there was no limit prescribed by the Governing Body on the power of the Principal for making admissions notwithstanding the merit list prepared by the College, (ii) giving of admission irrespective of the merit list to the students is the discretionary power of the Principal which the Principal has been exercising even in the past, (iii) other Colleges are also following the same practice and admissions are given by the Principal in exercise of the discretionary power, which is within the knowledge of the University and no objection whatsoever has ever been raised by the University and infact all such admissions made by the Principals have been approved by the University, and (iv) as per the Bulletin published and issued by the College, the minimum prescribed percentage for being eligible for admission in B. Com (P) Course was 45% and those who have secured the said percentage of marks are entitled to seek admission and there is nothing illegal in case admissions are given to such students. On facts it is denied that admission given to the petitioners were aprovisional, and it is stated that the petitioners were allotted roll numbers; they submitted their examination forms for the first year; the same were scrutinised by the College and being satisfied with the same were forwarded to the Delhi University, who after due verification and scrutiny had issued admission ticket for taking the examination from 2 May 1995. ( 11 ) WE have heard Shri R. P. Bansal, Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioners, Shriv. P. Chaudhry, Senior Advocate on behalf of the University and Shri Sunil Mittal, Advocate for the College. ( 11 ) WE have heard Shri R. P. Bansal, Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioners, Shriv. P. Chaudhry, Senior Advocate on behalf of the University and Shri Sunil Mittal, Advocate for the College. Shri Bansal while reiterating the stand of the petitioners taken in the rejoinder has also submitted that as per the University calendar the Principal is the final authority in the matter of grant of admissions and he is neither obliged to place the matter pertaining to the admissions in question before the Staff Council nor the Staff Council is competent to look into individual cases. His submission is that the duty of the Staff Council is to take a general policy decision regarding admissions, which does not include examination of each and every case where the admission is granted. In the instant cases the Principal having granted admission to the petitioners, accepted their admission and examination fees, is now estopped from cancelling the admissions and the petitioners, who are minor s, cannot be left in the lurch and made to suffer at this stage when they cannot get admission in any other College. ( 12 ) IN view of the fact that admittedly none of the petitioners has the minimum cut off percentage of marks for admission in B. Com (Pass) course on the basis of common merit list, it is unnecessary to go into the merits of the admission of each of the students, and the only question requiring consideration is whether the Governing Body or the Staff Council of a College, maintained or admitted to its privilages by the Delhi University or affiliated to it, has the power or authority to reserve some seats to be filled in at the discretion of the Principal or the Staff Council, with no regard to the merit of a student, because but for such quota petitioners could not get admission. ( 13 ) THE University of Delhi is a Body corporate established by the University Act, 1922. Section 2 (a) of the said Act defines a College to mean an institution maintained or admitted to its privileges by the University and includes an affiliated college and a constituent college. Ramjas College is stated to be a constituent college. ( 13 ) THE University of Delhi is a Body corporate established by the University Act, 1922. Section 2 (a) of the said Act defines a College to mean an institution maintained or admitted to its privileges by the University and includes an affiliated college and a constituent college. Ramjas College is stated to be a constituent college. Section 23 of the Act, inter alia, provides that Academic Council shall be the academic body of the University and shall, subject to the provisions of the Act, the statutes and the Ordinances, have the control and general regulation, and be responsible for the maintenance of standards of instruction, education and examination within the University and shall exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be conferred or imposed upon it by the statutes. Thus, in all academic matters, it is the Academic Council which is supreme. Section 30 of the Act prescribes various matters which may be provided for by the Ordinances; one such matter being "the admission of students to the University and their enrolment as such".( 14 ) ORDINANCE I provides for qualification for admission. Ordinance II deals with admissions. It enumerates various admission Committees and their composition and prescribes various provisions regulating admissions. Since we are not concerned with the cases of admission covered by the proviso to clause 2 (i) of the said ordinance, where admissions are to be finalised by the Admissions Committee, it is not necessary to go into the constitution of the admission committees. For the present cases, clauses 3 and 4 of the ordinance are relevant and therefore, it would be appropriate to reproduce them. The relevant parts of clause 3 and 4 of the Ordinance read as follows: "3. ADMISSIONS shall be finalised by the Principals of Colleges and Deans of Faculties concerned, as the case may be, not later than such last date as may be prescribed by the Academic Council from time to time. The relevant parts of clause 3 and 4 of the Ordinance read as follows: "3. ADMISSIONS shall be finalised by the Principals of Colleges and Deans of Faculties concerned, as the case may be, not later than such last date as may be prescribed by the Academic Council from time to time. Provided that the Vice-Chancellor may, at his discretion, allow admission to any courses after the prescribed date as aforesaid, for very exceptional reasons, such as late declaration of results or such other reasons considered satisfactory by the Vice Chancellor up to the dates thought reasonable by him in each case: Provided further that no admissions will be made by a College prior to the date to be fixed by the Academic Council each year. . . . " 4 (1) The minimum qualifications and conditions of eligibility for admission to the various courses shall be as laid down in Ordinance I and I-A and/or Appendix II to the Ordinances. Provided that notwithstanding anything in the said Ordinance or Appendix, the Academic Council, on the recommendations of the Admission Committees, reviewed and modified by the Standing Committee of the Academic Council if necessary, may:- (i) raise the minimum qualifications for eligibility for admission, e. g. , require a higher qualifying examination, or a prescribed percentage of marks in the qualifying examination, and the like; (ii) add to the conditions of eligibility for admission e. g. , require certain combinations of subjects, or some teaching or other experience, or require that the candidate shall pass a test devised for the purpose, or that he shall give an undertaking that he will not take up any employment during the course of his study, or will not appear at certain competitive examinations, and the like; (iii) where the number of eligible applicants for the course is greater than the number of seats available, prescribe any rules determining the order of preference among the applicants, e. g. , give weightage to those who have passed the qualifying examination in a single attempt, and the like. " ( 15 ) CLAUSE 3 of the Ordinance, inter alia, provides that admission shall be finalised by the Principals of Colleges and Deans of Faculties concerned, as the case may be, not later than such date as may be prescribed by the Academic Council from time to time provided that the Vice-Chancellor may at his discretion allow admission to under-graduate courses after the prescribed date, as aforesaid, for very exceptional reasons such as late declaration of results or such other reason considered satisfactory upto the dates thought reasonable by him in each case. Similarly clause 4 (1) provides that the minimum qualifications and conditions of eligibility for admission to the various courses shall be as laid down in Ordinance I and I-A and/or Appendix II to the Ordinances and in terms of the Proviso to the said clause, if necessary, only the Academic Council is competent to: (i) raise the minimum qualifications for eligibility for admission, (ii) add to the conditions of eligibility for admission and (iii) to prescribe any rules determining the order of preference among the applicants where the number of eligible applicants for the course is greater than the number of seats available. ( 16 ) EXCEPT for Ordinance II no other provision in the Act, statute or Ordinance has been brought to our notice which deals with admissions to various courses in a college. It has not been possible for us to read, either in Ordinance II or in the Notification issued by the University laying down the procedure for admission, any power either with the Governing Body or with the Staff Council to fix some institutional quota for the grant of admission by the Principal on his own discretion and giving him unfettered discretion as contended by Shri Bansal, ignoring statutory provisions in the form of Ordinance II clauses 3 and 4, mentioned above and the principle of estoppel cannot be pressed into service. There can be no estoppel against statute. Even equity follows law. Therefore, what is statutorily illegal cannot be enforced by resorting to the rule of estoppel. There can be no estoppel against statute. Even equity follows law. Therefore, what is statutorily illegal cannot be enforced by resorting to the rule of estoppel. ( 17 ) LEARNED counsel for the College has, of course, invited our attention to Ordinance XVIII clause 6-A to contend that the power given to the Staff Council in terms of sub-clause (5) of Clause 6-A of the said Ordinance for "organising admission of students" includes the power to fix institutional quota for admissions in the interest of the college. ( 18 ) IN our view, apart from the fact that sub-clause (5) itself starts with the expression "subject to the provisions of the Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances of the University, the Staff Council shall take decisions. . . . . ", the Staff Council, being itself the creature of the Ordinance under the Act is governed by the provisions of the Act, Statute and Ordinances and cannot travel beyond what is contemplated therein. As noted above, neither the statutes nor the ordinances provide for reservation for the so-called institutional/discretionary quota. That being so, we are unable to accept the contention that the duty of the Staff Council to take decision in respect of "organising admissions of students" would include power to fix institutional quota. We are of the view that by permitting the Principal to grant ten admissions on his own discretion, otherwise than on merit, the Staff Council has clearly overstepped the spheres of activity allocated to it. ( 19 ) THE validity of the said self-styled institutional quota is sought to be justified also on the ground that such quotas are intended to accommodate wards of those, like Police, DESU etc. , who could institutionally serve the interest of the college and this practice has been in existence in all the colleges for many years. We do not find any force in the submission. Does it mean that this type of "obligation" is intended to be used to carry special favour with the authorities who but for such accommodation would not care for the institution concerned? We feel that if this is the purpose or intention behind the institutional quota, reservations to any extent may not be sufficient enough to accommodate the favoured government agencies. Such a stand has neither any legal sanction nor can it be justified on situational exigencies. We feel that if this is the purpose or intention behind the institutional quota, reservations to any extent may not be sufficient enough to accommodate the favoured government agencies. Such a stand has neither any legal sanction nor can it be justified on situational exigencies. ( 20 ) WE are, therefore, of the view that there is no provision in the University Act, statute or ordinance providing for institutional quota and, therefore, the afore noted decision of the Governing Body dated 16 December 1991 or of the Staff Council dated 30 April 1992, authorising discretionary admissions otherwise than on merit, being relied upon by the Principal insupport of his stand, has no legal sanction. However, since ten admissions given on the strength of the said resolution are not in challenge before us, we refrain from commenting on their legality or otherwise except to say that the conduct of the Principal in granting admissions under this quota is not credit worthy. The facts in hand, briefly noticed above, not only present a sad spectacle of the state of affairs in college admissions but amply show how the so called institutional quota can be abused. Such admissions not only tantamount to back door entry, they highlight arbitrariness on the part of the Principal in ignoring the merit of other students, which should be the only criterion for admission. ( 21 ) EVEN more offensive than the brazen act of giving admission to the petitioners in violation of the admission rules is the grave and patent misuse to which the discretionary quota has been put to by the Principal. Fully conscious of the fact that the admissions for academic session 1994-95 had closed on 16 August 1994 in the normal course, and on 17 October 1994 with the approval of the Vice- chancellor, the Principal in total disregard of the schedule notified by the University not only granted admission to the petitioners as late as on 21 April 1995, he accepted their applications for taking examination alongwith the requisite fees, forwarded the same to the University, knowing fully well that on account of shortage in attendance, the petitioners were not eligible to take the examination. He not only manipulated the admissions to the petitioners but also suppressed the relevant information from the University as well. Indeed the admissions so made/promised to be made, permitting back door entry exhibit arbitrariness on his part. He not only manipulated the admissions to the petitioners but also suppressed the relevant information from the University as well. Indeed the admissions so made/promised to be made, permitting back door entry exhibit arbitrariness on his part. These back door admissions affect the morale of the meritorious students at the threshold of their career and is depricated. We restrain ourselves in saying more on this aspect of the matter. We would, however, direct the University authorities to take necessary remedial measures immediately to put an end to the prevalent practice of back door entries by the Principals at their own whims and fancies in the garb of institutional quotas. ( 22 ) WE are conscious of the fact that at the root of the mess created by the self- styled institutional quota is the acute shortage of total seats available to the students in all the colleges under the University, which creates frustration in the minds of the students and also causes anxiety for the parents over their future, prompting them to take recourse to un-desirable means to get their wards admitted to some college but the situation cannot be remedied by having discretionary quotas in the colleges but by taking measures to increase the number of seats in the existing colleges or by having new colleges. ( 23 ) WE are also constrained to depricate the conduct of the petitioners and/or their counsel in not furnishing in the writ petitions full and true facts with regard to their admissions. All the facts which we have noticed above came to light only after affidavit was filed by respondent No. 2 on our specific directions, which initially even they were reluctant to disclose. We have no doubt in our mind that if these important and relevant facts had been brought to the notice of the Court on the first date of hearing it would have materially affected the interim order, permitting the petitioners to take the examination. We have no doubt in our mind that if these important and relevant facts had been brought to the notice of the Court on the first date of hearing it would have materially affected the interim order, permitting the petitioners to take the examination. ( 24 ) BEFORE parting with the case we may note that Shri R. K. Khanna, learned counsel for Sachin Kaushik (CWP No. 1525/95) very fairly conceded before us that he was not contesting the impugned decision of the Principal in cancelling admission of his client but prayed that in order to save one year of the petitioner the University authorities may be directed to declare the result of the petitioner so that if found successful he may join the second year of the correspondence course in B. Com (Pass ). Mr. Khanna gave undertaking to the Court that his client will not seek admission in second year of regular course from any college. Shri V. P. Chaudhry, learned counsel for the University left this aspect to the discretion of the Court. With a view to save one year of the petitioner we direct the University to declare the result of this petitioner and if found successful, he may pursue the correspondence course from second year onwards. We may also note that a similar suggestion was put to Shri Bansal, learned counsel for the other petitioners, and though he exhibited no interest in it, we feel that, in order to save one or may be two academic years of these students, it would be appropriate if this concession is extended to these students as well provided they give an undertaking to the effect that they will not seek admission in the second year of a regular course. We would accordingly direct that on petitioners (represented by Shri Bansal) furnishing an undertaking in this Court in the above terms, their results shall also be declared and if found successful, they may also pursue their studies in the second year B. Com (Pass) of the correspondence course. ( 25 ) IN view of the foregoing discussion we do not find any merit in the writ petitions and dismiss the same. The Rule is discharged and the interim orders are vacated. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the cases there will be no order as to costs.