Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2281 (DEL)

Aman Singh Shirnet v. University of Delhi & Anr

2013-11-25

V.K.JAIN

body2013
JUDGMENT : V.K. Jain, J. The following directions were issued by this Court in WP (C) No.5074/2013 on 25.9.2013: “i. the respondent – Delhi University shall re-work the results of all the candidates who appeared in BMS Entrance Examination – 2013 in terms of this order, within one (1) week from today and shall immediately thereafter display the revised results on its website. ii. Within ten (10) days from today, the respondent-University shall issue public notice requiring candidates five times the number of seats available in each category, who were not offered admission during the previous counseling, to attend counseling on a date which the University may fix in this regard for the purpose of making admission to the seats which have since fallen vacant. The aforesaid notice shall also be displayed on the website of the University. iii. Petitioner No.2 in WP (C) No.5424/2013 who has taken admission in B.R. Ambedkar college which was not her first preference, as well as petitioner No.11 in the aforesaid writ petition who did not take admission since the college offered to him was not the college of his choice shall also be entitled to participate in the aforesaid admission process on the basis of their revised merit. In case, they get admission against vacant seats, the seats vacated by them shall be offered to the other candidates participating in the admission process. iv. The entire admission process shall be completed by the University as expeditiously as possible so as to avoid any loss of seats to the candidates. v. The candidates who were called for the third round of counseling but did not appear for the said counseling shall not be entitled to participate in the admission process. However, those candidates who despite participation in the third round of counseling were not offered any admission in the said counseling shall be entitled to participate in the admission process. vi. The University shall make it clear to the candidates that mere admission at a late stage shall not entitle them to any exemption/relaxation in the matter of attendance as per Rules of the University. If, however, there is a provision in the Rules of the University for any relaxation in the attendance requirement, they can request the University for grant of such relaxation and if made such request shall be considered by the University as per its rules and norms.” 2. If, however, there is a provision in the Rules of the University for any relaxation in the attendance requirement, they can request the University for grant of such relaxation and if made such request shall be considered by the University as per its rules and norms.” 2. Pursuant to the said directions, the respondent/University of Delhi held counseling for admission to the BMS Course of the University of Delhi on 10th October, 2013. The petitioner and four other candidates, namely, Anisha Vijya, Krishna Wadhwa, Sanchit Kukreja and Sneh Kakkar had obtained the same rank i.e. 917 in the entrance test for admission to the aforesaid course. One out of these five persons, namely, Sneh Kakkar, did not appear at the time of counseling. The remaining four persons were considered for the last 3 seats available in the said course. Since the petitioner before this Court was the youngest amongst the 4 candidates, he could not get admission as the Rules of the University provide that in case of a tie for rank in the merit list, the rank is to be decided on the basis of the Date of Birth and the candidate senior in age is to be given preference in admission. However, at least one more seat fell vacant on that day, since a candidate who was granted admission did not deposit the requisite fee. 3. The admission letter issued to the successful candidates clearly stipulated that the time for payment of fee will not be extended in any case and the candidates were required to pay the prescribed fee at the counseling site itself, meaning thereby that the fee was required to be deposited then and there at the place where the counseling was held, on the very day on which the counseling was held. The grievance of the petitioner is that though a few seats including the above-referred seat became available on that very day on account of some of the candidates not depositing the fee, he has not been considered for admission against such seats. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that in terms of the directions of the Court, the counseling was held on 10th October, 2013 and out of the candidates who appeared for the counseling admissions were granted against the seats which were available on that day. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that in terms of the directions of the Court, the counseling was held on 10th October, 2013 and out of the candidates who appeared for the counseling admissions were granted against the seats which were available on that day. He further submits that if any seat falls vacant, the University cannot keep on making admissions against such seats thereby making its admission an open ended process. He also submits that in any case, the counseling held on 10th October, 2013 was a special counseling held pursuant to the directions issued by the Court. 5. In my view, equity, fair play and justice demand that since at least one seat had become available on that very day on which the counseling was held, the petitioner ought to have been considered against such a seat. In fact, the petitioner has lost admission only on account of his being younger in age, though his name was placed at Serial No.134 whereas other persons who had got the same rank were placed at Serial No.135, 136, 137 and 138 of the list of candidates dated 5th October, 2013. 6. Since it is not in dispute that at least one seat became available on the day of counseling i.e. 10th October, 2013 on account of failure of one of the candidates to deposit the fee with the representative of Bhim Rao Ambedkar College who was present at the site of counseling, it is directed that the petitioner shall be granted admission against the aforesaid seat, subject to his completing all the formalities in this regard within three working days. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled to any relaxation as a matter of right, in the attendance on account of this late admission granted to him and if any relaxation in attendance requirement is sought, that would be considered only in terms of the order dated 25th September, 2013 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.5074/2013. The petition and the pending CM stand disposed of. A copy of this order be given dasti.