IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 3rd October, 2011
W.P.(C) 6656/2011
Ms. Salma Khan ......Petitioner
Through: Mr.R.K. Saini and Mr. Sitab Ali
Chaudhary, Advs.
Vs.
University of Delhi ......Respondent
Through: Mr. MJS Rupal with Ms. Shawana
Bari, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR:
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may Yes
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes
in the Digest?
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (Oral)
*
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to direct
W.P.(C) No. 6656/2011 Page 1 of 12
the respondents to grant her admission in the LLB Ist year
course in the OBC category against the vacant 50 seats of
LLB Session 2011-12.
2. The brief background of facts which has led to the
filing of the present petition is that the petitioner had
secured 209 marks in the LLB entrance test and in the OBC
category her rank was 444. It is the case of the petitioner
that she was called to participate in the counseling on
13.7.2011 as per her rank but was not given admission on
that day despite her rank being called but she was given an
„option form‟ to fill her choice out of the three centers in the
faculty of law. It is also the case of the petitioner that in fact
the petitioner was provisionally admitted on 13.7.2011 but
she was not granted final admission as the matter regarding
the criteria for filling up the quota of 27% reservation for
the OBC category was pending consideration before the
Hon‟ble Apex Court. It is also the case of the petitioner that
all the OBC candidates were required to appear on
20.7.2011 before the respondent Faculty of Law and when
W.P.(C) No. 6656/2011 Page 2 of 12
the petitioner had appeared on 20.7.2011 then she was told
that the respondent was still awaiting the final decision of the
Hon‟ble Apex Court in the matter of P.V. Indiresan Vs. Union
of India, Civil Appeal no. 7084/2011, and as and when the
Hon‟ble Apex Court decides the matter, the petitioner would
be informed to seek admission as per her rank. It is further
the case of the petitioner that she had visited the respondent
faculty on 1.8.2011 and 12.8.2011 when again she was told
that the matter before the Apex Court was still pending
consideration. The petitioner thereafter went to her parental
home Etah, Uttar Pradesh on 13.8.2011 and remained busy
to attend the marriage of her real sister which was
scheduled for 4.9.2011 and when she returned back to Delhi
on 8.9.2011 and visited the office of the respondent, then
she came to know that the respondent had already
conducted open house counseling on 20.8.2011 and in the
said counseling they had given admissions to all those OBC
candidates who had appeared on that day. It is also the
case of the petitioner that the last candidate who was
W.P.(C) No. 6656/2011 Page 3 of 12
granted admission in the OBC category had secured 56
marks in the entrance examination with the rank of 1017 in
the OBC category, but the petitioner whose rank was 444
was denied admission for no fault on her part as she was
never informed about the said open house counseling
through any means.
3. Mr.MJS Rupal, learned counsel for the respondent
University vehemently opposes the present petition. Counsel
on instructions submits that the petitioner herself is to be
blamed for not participating in the counseling which was held
on 20.8.2011 for the OBC candidates. Counsel also submits
that in fact the petitioner was never granted admission on
13.7.2011 as on that day the rank of the petitioner was much
below than the last candidate who was granted admission on
that day in the OBC category. Counsel also submits that on
13.7.2011 the candidates securing rank in the OBC category
merit list from 301 to 450 were required to attend counseling
and the last candidate admitted on that day from the OBC
category had secured 236 marks in the entrance test and
W.P.(C) No. 6656/2011 Page 4 of 12
rank 330. Counsel further submits that the said criteria was
adopted in terms of the Delhi High Court interim order in
operation on that day requiring giving of 10% weightage to
the OBC candidates from the maximum marks in the
entrance test and the maximum marks in the entrance test
were 700 marks. Counsel thus submits that adopting the said
criteria, the candidates belonging to the OBC category were
given advantage of 70 marks and therefore those candidates
who had secured upto 236 marks were provisionally
admitted against OBC reserved seats in the LLB first year
course. Counsel further submits that so far the candidates in
the merit list of OBC category beyond rank 331 upto 450
were concerned, they were required to fill up their option
forms so as to participate in the next counseling, which as
per the brochure was scheduled for 20.7.2011. Counsel
submits that on 20.7.2011 the counseling in fact was not held
in view of the pendency of the matter before the Hon‟ble
Apex Court in P.V. Indiresan Vs. UOI (Supra). Counsel also
submits that thereafter the counseling for OBC candidates
W.P.(C) No. 6656/2011 Page 5 of 12
was held on 20.8.2011 after the decision of the Apex Court
in the aforesaid matter on 18.8.2011, wherein the Apex Court
took a view that all eligible OBC candidates have to be given
admission and if the seats still remain vacant then such OBC
seats will be converted to the general category. The
contention of the counsel for the respondent is that through
the notice dated 12.8.2011, the counseling was duly notified
through the notice board, and through the website as well,
and the petitioner although was eligible to participate in the
said counseling which was held on 20.8.2011, but she did not
choose to participate in the said counseling due to her
personal reasons and for which the respondent cannot be
blamed. Referring to Instruction No.10 which forms part of
the Bulletin of Information issued by the Faculty of Law,
counsel submits that the respondent University was not
obligated to send individual communication to each and
every candidate inviting them to participate in the
counseling. Counsel also submits that the academic session
for the first year has already begun from 1.8.2011 and the
W.P.(C) No. 6656/2011 Page 6 of 12
classes of the first semester will close on 20.11.2011, and
now the petitioner cannot be granted midstream admission.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at
considerable length.
5. On 13.7.2011, the candidates securing rank in the
OBC category merit list from 301 to 450 were required to
participate in the counseling and as per the stand taken by
the respondent University; which has not been disputed by
the counsel for the petitioner; that the last candidate
admitted on that day from the OBC category had secured
236 marks with the rank 330 in the entrance test. The
rank of the petitioner was 444, and therefore the petitioner
cannot claim that she was granted provisional admission on
13.7.2011. The fact that the petitioner had merely filled in
the „option form‟ to opt for a particular centre would not be
construed as that the petitioner was granted provisional
admission. It is also an indisputable fact that the issue as to
what should be the “cut off” for admission of candidates of
OBC category in the Central Education Institutions, whether
W.P.(C) No. 6656/2011 Page 7 of 12
10% below the cut off marks of general category candidates
or 10% below the eligibility criteria of admission was
pending consideration before the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the
matter of P.V. Indiresan(supra) and due to the pendency of
the said matter the respondent University deferred the
admission process, so far filling up OBC seats was
concerned. The Apex Court decided the aforesaid matter on
18.8.2011, and as per the notice dated 12.8.2011, the
respondent had already notified the counseling of the OBC
candidates for 20.8.2011 and the petitioner should have
ensured her presence on that day. As per Instruction No. 10,
relied upon by the counsel for the respondent, which forms
part of the Information Bulletin issued by the respondent
Faculty of Law, every student seeking admission was made
known that no personal communication for the counseling
was to be sent by the respondent University. For better
appreciation Instruction No.10 is reproduced as under:
“10. The result of the Entrance Test shall be notified on the
Notice Board of the Faculty of Law. The result would also be
available on the University website: www.du.ac.in. All notices
relating to admission, counseling, etc. shall be displayed only
W.P.(C) No. 6656/2011 Page 8 of 12
on the Notice Board of the Faculty of Law. No individual
communication will be sent to any candidate for this purpose.”
Not only the date of counseling of 20.8.2011 was notified by
the respondent through the notice board, but the said date
was also notified on their website. The website of the
respondent university could have been diligently checked by
the petitioner wherever she had gone and therefore to say
that the petitioner remained busy in arranging and
attending the marriage of her real sister at Etah, U.P.
cannot be considered as a valid excuse for not checking the
information on the website of the respondent Faculty of Law
for updating herself. It would be pertinent to refer to the
recent decision of this court in the case of Dakshesh Sharma
vs. Vice Chancellor, Delhi University WPC 5568/2011 decided
on 1.9.2011 wherein I had the occasion to deal with the a
similar grievance raised by the petitioner of non intimation of
the counseling and I held as under:
“It is also a fact that the petitioner applied under the RTI for
seeking information regarding the existing vacancies to gauge his
chance and on the reply received under the said application by the
W.P.(C) No. 6656/2011 Page 9 of 12
Officiating Head of the Department he came to know that there
were 10 vacancies, in response to which he wrote to the
Coordinator Admission for conducting another counseling so that
the vacant seats be filled. Admittedly, the petitioner did not get
any reply to the aforesaid representations and had thus consigned
to his fate and did not follow up his case any further. It has been
admitted by the petitioner that he did not check the website of the
respondent after he did not get any response to his representations
and therefore did not come to know about the extended second
round of counseling. In the peak time of admissions, the
educational Institutions like the respondents are flooded with
representations and requests and it is nothing but a grossly naïve
presumption on the part of the petitioner that as the
representations have not been replied to, there would be no chance
for any other counseling to take place. It is a caveat to the
students that it is their bounden duty to keep a tab on the
admission processes taking place in the institutes where they are
vying for admission. Time is the essence in today’s arduous and cut
throat competition for admission and the petitioner should have
been more diligent, vigilant and on his toes for following up the
process of admissions in the respondent institute.
…………
This court also does not find any force in the contention of the
counsel for the petitioner that the respondents did not intimate him
and he received no SMS through mobile or internet or by post for
conducting the extended round of counseling as there is no reason
to attribute any malafide to the respondent for discriminating the
petitioner vis a vis other candidates who were called for the
extended counseling and attended the same. Even otherwise, the
onus is on the petitioner to keep himself abreast with the
developments and not for the respondents to keep track once they
have timely uploaded the said information on their website which is
a public portal accessible to all.”
6. Thus, it has been a consistent view of the courts
that the students seeking admission have to remain on
his/her toes and must diligently go through the instructions
contained in the Information Bulletin issued by the
W.P.(C) No. 6656/2011 Page 10 of 12
universities and institutes and should actively follow up till
he/she gets admission in a particular course applied by
him/her. Personal excuse of attending marriage or being
engaged in some other job cannot be read into the
Information Bulletin of the respondent university to grant any
special concession to the petitioner so as to take admission in
the LLB first year course. A student who is negligent and
who does not give utmost priority to his/her career is
ultimately bound to suffer and he/she should be aware about
the crucial time of admission and be updated about the
developments taking place on that front. The petitioner thus
due to her own laxity has lost her right as an OBC candidate
to avail admission against the said vacant seats.
7. Hence, in the light of the above discussion, this
court does not find any merit in the grievance raised by the
petitioner in the present petition. However, this court in a
connected writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 6933/2011 filed
by the candidates belonging to the general category wherein
challenge has been made by them against the action of the
W.P.(C) No. 6656/2011 Page 11 of 12
respondent University in not converting the unfilled OBC
seats into the general seats, despite the directions given by
the Hon‟ble Apex Court in P.V. Indiresan‟s case (Supra), has
taken a view that such an act of the respondent is in clear
defiance of the directions given by the Hon‟ble Apex Court
and therefore, this court has directed special counseling for
the candidates belonging to the general category after the
conversion of the vacant 50 OBC seats into the general
category by the respondent University. Hence, taking into
consideration the aforesaid direction, the petitioner herein is
permitted to participate in the said special counseling,
however as a general category candidate as per her overall
merit and rank in the entrance test to try her luck.
8. With these directions the present petition stands
disposed of.
October 03, 2011 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
mg
W.P.(C) No. 6656/2011 Page 12 of 12
