Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 651 (DEL)

PUNEET DUDEJA v. GOVERNMENT OF N. C. T. OF DELHI

2003-07-23

A.K.SIKRI, B.C.PATEL

body2003
( 1 ) LPA No. 318/2003 the case relates to admission to the B- tech (part-time course), for Academic Year 2002-03, by Delhi College of Engineering (Respondent no. 3) under University of Delhi (Respondent no. 2 ). College had given admission to respondent no. 4 in the said course which was challenged by the appellant herein by filing CW NO. 6089/2002 on the ground that respondent no. 4 was not eligible to be admitted. It may be mentioned that appellant has a three-year diploma in Civil engineering. Respondent no. 4 is having a diploma in Architectural Assistantship which is also of three years duration. The eligibility criteria for admission to B-Tech programme is a State Diploma Examination of three years duration or any other examination recognised equivalent thereto with a minimum aggregate of 55% marks. The case of the appellant was that diploma in Architectural Assistantship possessed by respondent no. 4 could not be treated as equivalent to a State Diploma examination. As no exercise was undertaken by the University of Delhi, as to whether architectural Assistantship was equivalent to a State Diploma Examination, the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition vide judgment dated 7th April, 2003 by giving the following direction:- "having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that the recommendations of the equivalence Committee be forthwith placed before the Academic Council for approval. The Academic Council shall consider the same within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Should the Academic Council be not in a position to meet immediately then the recommendations be placed before the Vice Chancellor, who is competent to take a decision in this regard by virtue of emergency powers vested in him. " ( 2 ) THE exercise was not undertaken within the period stipulated. Appellant, in these circumstances filed this appeal. While issuing notices in this appeal on 6th May, 2003, we directed the Academic Council Delhi University to place before the Court as to what decision was taken in the matter. It is a matter of record that this exercise was undertaken by the Vice-Chancellor only after the notice in this appeal was served upon the respondents. Decision has been communicated to this Court by filing affidavit dated 7th July, 2003 of Dr. Atindra Sen, Registrar, Delhi University. It is a matter of record that this exercise was undertaken by the Vice-Chancellor only after the notice in this appeal was served upon the respondents. Decision has been communicated to this Court by filing affidavit dated 7th July, 2003 of Dr. Atindra Sen, Registrar, Delhi University. In para 6 of the affidavit, it is stated as under:- "after examining the matter, being of the view that the question of equivalence could be decided only by the Academic Council of the University on the recommendations of the standing Committee of the Academic council and not by an equivalence committee constituted by the Chairman admission Committee, and further being of the view that Diploma in Architectural assistantship of Aligarh Muslim University cannot be regarded as equivalent to diploma in Civil Engineering inter alia in view of the norms of the All India Council for Technical Education treating these two disciplines as different, the Vice chancellor came to conclusion that the decision of the Committee to treat the diploma in Architectural Assistantship as equivalent to Diploma in Civil Engineering cannot be approved and declined to approve the same. It was further decided that the above said decision of the Vice-Chancellor be reported to the academic Council in its next meeting. " ( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY, if respondent no. 4 was not to be given admission, it was the appellant who was next in the waiting list, who would have got the admission. Therefore, the fall out of the decision of the Vice-Chancellor would be that the appellant was wrongly denied admission to the course. It may be stated that the appellant had approached this Court by filing CW NO. 6089/2002 without loss of any time on 20th September, 2002, i. e. immediately after the admission was given to respondent no. 4. It was due to the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and delay in complying with the directions that the Academic Year 2002-03 was over. 6089/2002 without loss of any time on 20th September, 2002, i. e. immediately after the admission was given to respondent no. 4. It was due to the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and delay in complying with the directions that the Academic Year 2002-03 was over. Accordingly, on 9th July, 2003, when this matter came up before this Court, observation was made by us that University/college shouid consider the desirability of giving admission to the appellant in the first year of course of this Academic Year as the appellant had qualified the written test in the previous year, but he was denied admission due to no fault of his, but because of the wrong decision taken by the Committee of respondent no. 3 school. ( 4 ) IN view of the direction dated 9th July, 2003, the appropriate decision wc. s required to be taken forthwith. Learned counsel appearing for the University during the course of the argument apprehended some difficulties. It is clear that the decision is to be taken in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. The Vice-Chancellor has taken a decision in the matter and therefore, the appellant should not suffer unnecessarily. There was no fault on the part of the appellant and in view of these aspects, we direct the university to take a decision for giving admission to the appellant in the first year of the course in this academic year, which may not be treated as a precedent in future. The university shall render decision immediately. With these directions, we dispose of the appeal with liberty to the appellant to move before this Court, in case of any difficulty. The exercise shall be completed within a period of 15 days. For the said purpose, the appellant shall appear before the Admission Committee and University to take a decision within a period of one week and thereafter, the concerned College will complete the formalities within one week. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent no. 4 submitted that his admission be protected as there is 4 apprehension that admission of respondent no. 4 may not be canceled. We make it clear that we have considered the case of the appellant alone and we do not make any observation in so far as the case of respondent no. 4 is concerned. Direct Service (DASTI) permitted.