ORDER
P. N. Nag, J.
1. The decision in this writ petition depends on the question whether the eligibility requirement B.A. (Hons) Economics of Delhi University with 50% or more marks in the aggregate for entrance test prescribed for admission to M.A. (Economics) Course by Department of Economics of the
University of Delhi is a valid and reasonable criteria and satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
2. The facts leading to this writ are that the petitioner who passed Bachelor’s Degree (Hons) Examination in Economics from Kamla Nehru College, Delhi, of Delhi University and secured 48.5% marks out of 800 marks i.e. less than 50% marks in aggregate, appeared in the entrance test held for admission to M.A. Course in Economics by respondent No. 2 i.e. Delhi School of Economics, which is the Department of respondent No. 1. i.e. Delhi University. According to the prospectus issued by the respondents, the petitioner registered herself with respondent No. 2 and she was given registration No. 795. Paragraph 3.1 of the prospectus (Annexure-1) provided that entrance test for the student seeking admission to the M.A. Economics Course will be held on 11th July, 1991 from 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. A merit list based on the candidate’s academic record and performance in the test will be prepared. Admission will be strictly according to merit provided that no candidate will be admitted unless he/ she secures at least 30% marks in the Test. Further, for appearance in the entrance test, one of the eligibility requirement which is relevant has been provided, which may be quoted as under:–
“BA (Hons) Economics of Delhi University with 50% or more marks in aggregate.”
3. It appears, when the entrance test was to be held on 11th July, 1992, the result of the petitioner in the Bachelor’s Degree (Hons.) Examination was not declared and she was allowed to take the entrance test provisionally. The petitioner qualified and was placed in the merit list of 150 students to be admitted to the course. In spite of this, the petitioner was refused admission to the said course as she failed to satisfy the eligibility requirement for the said course.
4. Being aggrieved against the refusal for admission to the said course i.e. M.A. (Economics) Course, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
5. Mr. Lekhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that once the petitioner has been allowed to appear in the entrance test and placed in the merit list, she should be admitted to the said course and no distinction/discrimination should be made between the successful meritorious candidates of the entrance test. In fact the criteria for eligibility has no reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The criteria of fixation of eligibility of 50% marks or more in the aggregate in fact is unintelligible and irrational and defeats the very purpose of its formulation.
6. Mr. Lekhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, relied upon U.P. Junior Doctors’ Action Committee v. Dr. B. Sheetal Nand-wani, wherein the Supreme Court had clearly indicated that there should be a selection test for post graduate admission as admission has become very competitive and in compliance of Art. 14 of the Constitution, a broad-based arrangement should be made. He also relied upon a judgment Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Thukral Anjali Deokumar, in order to demonstrate that there should be intelligible differentia for classification and rational nexus.
7. We have considered the submissions of Mr. Lekhi and we do not find any substance in such submissions. There cannot be any dispute that the object of holding of entrance test for admission to the Educational Institutions and in the present case to M.A. (Economics) is to attract the best talents and provide for best material for the said course. In case a person is selected on merit in the competition her claim should not be ignored for admission and non-meritorious candidates should not be admitted over her head having regard to the provisions of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. Further, if any classification is made between the candidates who find themselves in the merit list, that classification must have a reasonable nexus with the object to be achieved.
8. The Department of Economics is a part of Delhi University, which bears the burden
of the said Department being run by the University. Therefore, the University has every right to prescribe conditions for eligibility for entrance test and so long as such conditions are not arbitrary, unreasonable, it is beyond challenge and cannot be questioned by the petitioner.
9. No doubt in the normal course there could not have been any classification between the successful meritorious candidates of the entrance test. However, in the present case, the petitioner has not fulfillled the eligibility criteria on the declaration of the result which could not be anticipated at the time of making application or at the time of entrance test as the result of the petitioner was not declared and the she was admitted to the entrance test provisionally. Had her result been known at the relevant time of making her application, she would not have been permitted to apply for the entrance test like other persons who did not fulfill the eligibility criteria of 50% or more marks in aggregate in the Bachelor course. In fact the petitioner belongs to the category of such persons who did not have the eligibility criteria and who could not even apply for the admission to the entrance test and not to the category of person who fulfillled the eligibility criteria and selected in the entrance test. In these circumstances, the distinction or classification between the successful meritorious candidates of entrance test is inevitable and justified. In case the petitioner is allowed to be admitted on the basis of the merit she secured in the entrance test, she would be put in a better position over other similarly situated persons who did not have the eligibility criteria and as such who obviously could not apply for admission to the entrance test and thereby would result in denial of equality of opportunity to other similarly situated persons who did not fulfill the eligibility criteria, which the respondent being State cannot be permitted to do under Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.
10. The eligibility criteria provided in the prospectus appears to be with a view to enable those students having better academic records and who secured 50% or more marks in aggregate in B. A. (Hons.) to appear in the
entrance test, as they have reasonably brighter chances generally of selection on merits in the entrance test in comparison to those students who have secured less than 50% marks i.e. eligibility criteria. It is, however, possible that in certain cases even a person who have secured less than 50% marks may also find himself in the merit list in comparison to the persons who have secured more than 50% marks but that shall be an exception to the Rule and such a situation is inherent in the system of examination itself and cannot be helped. In fact prescribing of eligibility criteria is an additional method for ensuring better talent and material for the course. Therefore, the classification of the candidate between the successful meritorious candidates of the entrance test is rational, reasonable and has every nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Furthermore, the provision of such a criteria will exclude many students securing less than 50% marks from appearing in the entrance test and in that situation the entrance test wilt be easier for the University to manage.
11. The aforesaid authorities cited by Mr. Lekhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, are distinguishable as in these authorities the eligibility criteria is not challenged.
12. We may also note that in Jayant Sud
v. The Faculty of Law through the Dean, University of Delhi, 1992 (1) Delhi Lawyer 294, wherein admission to LL. B. course in Delhi University eligibility criteria of 50% or more marks for the entrance test was challenged, a Division Bench of this Court comprising of D. P. Wadhwa and D. K. Jain, JJ. held :–
“That the Academic Council is a high powered body of the University. It has in its wisdom prescribed the eligibility requirements for admission to LL. B. course and approved the rules framed for the conduct of the admission test for admission to LL. B. Course and also done away with the sports quota. We feel High Court is ill-equipped to go into the standards set by the Academic Council and we are of the opinion that interference by the High Court in the University matters should be minimal. High Court
can interfere only if the action of the respondents is arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. We do not find the action of the respondents to be so in any way. If some students who did not get 50% marks in degree examination but because their results were not declared and they were allowed to take the entrance test and it so happened that in that test they secured higher marks than the students who had secured 50% or more marks in the degree examination, that is something inherent in our system of examination and no fault can be found with the resolution of the Academic Council on that account.
13. These observations equally apply in the present case and squarely cover this case.
14. In the light of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
15. Petition dismissed.