Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1142 (DEL)

MS Annmary Luke Kochery v. University of Delhi

2005-12-08

VIKRAMAJIT SEN

body2005
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. Rejoinder had been returned by the Registry as it had been filed beyond the period permitted by the Court. Rejoinder has been taken on record during the course of the hearing. 2. The facts of the present case are singular. The Petitioner asserts that she is an outstanding student having secured a position in the University. She has, however, not attended the Delhi University. She appeared in the Entrance Test for the LL.B. Degree Course (2005-06) and secured the 82nd position in the Merit List. In other words, subject to her having the requisite qualifications, in the ordinary course she would have secured the Centre of her choice. 3. The Schedule for Admissions is contained in the Bulletin itself. It notifies the date for declaration of Entrance Test results, First Counselling (19.7.2005), Second Counselling (23.7.2005), Third Counselling (28.7.2005), Fourth Counselling (2.8.2005). The Bulletin so contains instructions to the effect that successful candidates in order of merit in the LL.B. Entrance Test must give their preference for admission to any of the Centres of the Faculty of Law at the time of counselling and that candidates would be admitted to the Centre of their choice strictly on the basis of merit and subject to the availability of seats; the choice so exercised at the time of counselling would be final. It has also been laid down in the Bulletin that the allotment of seats to the candidates will be made only when they personally attend the Counselling session. At that time, they would have to fulfil nine conditions including filing of original documents and appearance in person. 4. The Petitioner asserts that she could not be present at any of the four Counselling sessions because she was suffering from Jaundice from July, 2005 onwards: It is not denied that she had informed the Law Faculty of her inability to be present in person. Despite these circumstances, the Law Faculty had not reserved a seat for her. 5. Seen from the perspective of the Petitioner, this appears to be a harsh and unsympathetic attitude on the part of the Law Faculty. However, it must be borne in mind that there are always several students vying for every seat available in an educational institution. Despite these circumstances, the Law Faculty had not reserved a seat for her. 5. Seen from the perspective of the Petitioner, this appears to be a harsh and unsympathetic attitude on the part of the Law Faculty. However, it must be borne in mind that there are always several students vying for every seat available in an educational institution. It is also commonplace that students apply for several courses and given that they are successful in all of them take the course most preferable to them. Therefore, there is no certainly that a person who is in the zone of consideration on the strength of his/her position in the Merit List, will invariably join the course. If seats are reserved for them and they elect not to sign up, other students will be deprived of an opportunity. 6. It is also common knowledge that if original documents were to be taken at the time of submission of applications, it would severely restrict the options available to the student. Given that applications for admission exceed by more than three times the number of seats available, it would be a monumental task to check each application rather than that of the successful candidates. Although Counselling, therefore, seems to be a cumbersome and superfluous formality, administratively it may be impossible to avoid it. The condition that a student must be personally present may, at first blush, appear to be unreasonable, but when the administration of an educational institution is kept in view, this would not be so. 7. It is not the case of the Petitioner that she sent her original documents to the Law Faculty and also similarly conveyed to them her choice of a particular Centre. Keeping her high position in the Merit List in perspective, it was more than likely she would have given the Centre of her choice. However, the Faculty cannot be blamed for not being able to accommodate the Petitioner in the circumstances which have been disclosed in this Petition. No right, enforceable through a mandamus, has been disclosed or exists. 8. A prayer is made that one seat be kept reserved for the Petitioner in the next academic year. If an Order of this effect is passed, it would again cause un surmountable administrative difficulties for any educational institution. It would also unfairly curtail the number of seats available to students in the next academic year. 8. A prayer is made that one seat be kept reserved for the Petitioner in the next academic year. If an Order of this effect is passed, it would again cause un surmountable administrative difficulties for any educational institution. It would also unfairly curtail the number of seats available to students in the next academic year. The Petitioner will, therefore, have to reconcile herself to the vagaries of fate and to the consequence of her unfortunately falling ill at the critical time of her life. Keeping her academic background in mind, I would not be surprised she does equally well if not better, in the next Entrance Test. The Writ Petition is disposed of with these observations-