JUDGMENT
R.C. Chopra, J.
1. The petitioner, a student of LLB IInd year in
Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, feels aggrieved by
the non-allotment of a room (seat) to him in P.G. Men’s
Hostel, University of Delhi. According to him the respondent
No. 3, the Provost of the said hostel, has acted illegally and
in an arbitrary, malafide and discriminatory manner in
refusing a seat to him in as much as he has been objecting to
allotment of seats to certain ineligible students. It is
also pleaded by way of filing an additional affidavit that
one room belonging to the quota of Faculty of Law has been
illegally and unauthorizedly transferred to the Department of
Philosophy under the foreign quota although there are more
rooms available under the foreign quota of other Faculties.
It is submitted that this was done only with a view to
deprive the petitioner of a seat in the Hostel in question.
2. The respondents in their counter affidavit, as well
as additional affidavit have denied that the respondent No. 3
has acted illegally, arbitrarily or malafide with a view to
deprive the petitioner of a room in the Hostel. It is argued
that no student including the petitioner has any vested right
to claim a seat in the Hostel. It is asserted that the seats
have been allotted according to the Rules contained in the
“Handbook in the Information and Rules of P.G. Men’s Hostel”.
It is submitted that a seat belonging to the Foreign Quota of
the Law Faculty was transferred to the Foreign Quota of Arts
Faculty as there was no Law student in Foreign Quota.
Reference is made to Clause 12 of the Handbook of Information
and Rules as well as the Minutes of the 38th meeting of the
Managing Committee of the Hostel held on 11.1.2002 in which
the existing Rules regarding distribution of the seats were
changed and the Admission Committee was empowered to allocate
a seat to a sister department or Faculty if no application is
received or inadequate number of applications is received
under the quota of any subject/Faculty.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondent. I have gone through the
records.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a serious
grievance in regard to the transfer of one seat of the
Foreign Quota of the Law Faculty to the Foreign Quota of the
Faculty of Arts and refers to Clause 2 of the “Handbook of
Information and Rules, 2001-2002” regarding distribution of
seats. It is pointed out that under this Handbook of Rules,
the respondents had no right to transfer any seat of any
course or Faculty if in the said course or Faculty sufficient
number of applicants were available. The proviso attached to
this Rule regarding transfer of spare seats from one Faculty
to another relates to the category (h) only which refers to
the seats for blind, physically handicapped, wards of war
widows and sports persons. Even this is permissible only
when the number of applications under these categories in any
Faculty is less than available seats. He, therefore, argues
that the transfer of one seat of the Faculty of Law to the
Faculty of Arts under the pretext that there was no foreign
student in the Faculty of Law was in violation of the Rules
as other candidates of the Faculty of Law including the
petitioner were still waiting and trying their best to get
in.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other
hand, argues that the Admission Committee has unrestricted
and unfettered powers in the matter of running the Hostel and
can adjust the seats as per exigencies of the situation. He
also refers to the minutes of the 38th meeting of the
Managing Committee held on 11.1.2002 in which the following
paragraph was approved:
“In case no application or inadequate
number of applications is received under the
quota of any subject/faculty, the spare
seat/s of such a subject/faculty may be
allocated to subject/s of a sister
department/s or faculty/-ies by the
Admission Committee.”
6. He argues that it was not necessary that the seat
for a foreign student in the Faculty of Law should have been
offered to other students of the Faculty of Law. According
to him when no foreign student from the Faculty of Law was
available, the seat reserved for a foreign student of the
Faculty of Law could be transferred to any other Faculty so
that it could be allotted to a foreign student only. In the
counter affidavit filed by the respondent it was explained
that there were 23 seats in all for the Law Faculty as per
the Handbook of Information and Rules. Out of these two
seats were reserved for foreign students. Since no foreign
student had come forward, one seat was transferred to LLB 1st
Year and second seat was transferred to a foreign student of
another Faculty. The said transfer was sought to be
protected under the minutes of the 38th meeting of the
Managing Committee of the Hostel held on 11th January, 2002.
7. A perusal of the averments made by the petitioner
and the response filed by the respondents clearly reveals
that the respondents are not acting squarely within the
parameters prescribed for the allotment of seats in the
“Handbook of Information and Rules for the year 2001-02”.
Clause 2 regarding distribution of seats does not empower the
respondents to transfer seats from one Faculty to another.
The proviso relating to allotment of seats from one
Faculty/subjects to another is in respect of the seats
reserved for blind, physically handicapped, wards of war
widows and sports persons only and that too when the
applications under said categories in any Faculty is less
than the available seats. Therefore, it is absolutely clear
that the Clause 2 of “Handbook of Information and Rules”
issued for the year 2001-02 did not vest the respondents or
respondent No. 3 with any power to transfer a seat from one
category or one Faculty to another if applications of that
Faculty or category were pending and the students were
seeking those seats. The fact that this Clause specifically
empowered the respondents in regard to transfer of seats only
for category (h) pertaining to blind, physically handicapped,
wards of war widows and sports persons suggests that this
discretion was not available to the respondents in regard to
other categories.
8. The contention of learned counsel for the
respondents that in the meeting of the Managing Committee of
the Hostel on 11.1.2002 Clause 2 was amended and the powers
of respondents were enlarged so as to extend the same to any
subject/Faculty cannot be accepted for the reason that even
amended Clauses speaks of spare seat/seats of such a
subject/Faculty which means that the transfer of seats can
take place only when there is no applicant from a particular
subject/Faculty. The object of amended Rule could have been
to enlarge the powers of the respondents in regard to
transfer of seats, as under part (h) of Clause 2 of the
Handbook of Information and Rules to other categories, but
there was no deviation from the basic pre-condition that the
seat should be spare and there should be no waiting candidate
from the said subject/Faculty. Therefore, the amended rule
even does not help the respondents in any manner whatsoever.
Even if this amended rule had supported the respondents case
in regard to their power of transfer of seats, this Court
could not have permitted them to do so for the current
session on the principle of estopple. After issuance of
“Handbook of Information and Rules for the year 2001-02” and
after displaying the lists of short-listed candidates, the
respondents could not turn back and change the rules to the
disadvantage of those, who acting upon the offer held out to
them by the “Handbook of Information and Rules” were seeking
admission. The meeting to amend the existing rule was held
after declaring the names of shortlisted candidates and after
the petitioner had started raising objections against
allocation of seats. The powers of the Managing Committee
and its bonafides to change the Rules are not free from
doubt.
9. In the result, this Court is of the considered view
that the petitioner has made out a case to establish that the
respondents were acting arbitrarily, malafide and in
violation of rules by allotting one seat of Foreigners’ Quota
of Law Faculty to some other Faculty when Law Students were
in the queue and waiting for admission. One seat out of two
seats in the Foreigners’ Quota was given to a General
candidate of Law Faculty but this Court is of the considered
view that both the seats ought to have been given to the
General candidates of Law Faculty as rules did not permit
transfer of this seat to the Department of Philosophy. This
action of the respondents is, therefore, quashed and it is
ordered that the second seat also pertaining to the
Foreigners’ Quota of Law Faculty be allotted to a General
category student of Law Faculty within two weeks. It is
further directed that the allotment of the seat be made to
only one of those eligible students who had applied within
time frame. The case of the petitioner be also considered
along with others. If the petitioner is found eligible and
entitled to this seat on merit as per Rules the seat be
allotted to him.
10. Before parting with this judgment, this Court must
refer to the grievance mae by the petitioner in regard to a
student Jabarjeet Singh who was shortlisted in the Hostel
admission list inspite of the fact that he was not eligible.
The plea of the respondents that this shortlisting was with a
view to invite objections and then scrutinize the eligibility
criteria does not appear to be genuine as even short-listing
had to be done in respect of eligible candidates only. This
student was given “guest-resident” status in the year 2000-01
and in current session even after the rejections raised by the
petitioner, he is being allowed to stay in one of the rooms
of wardens’ residence as a Resident Guest. All does not
appear to be straight in the matter of allotment of seats in
the respondents’ Hostel. The respondents must appreciate
that their arbitrary, unjust or abrasive actions not only
breed discontent amongst the students but also set a bad
example for the future managers of nation.
11. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.