{"id":92644,"date":"2001-12-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-12-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hemant-gaur-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-21-december-2001"},"modified":"2019-03-02T13:07:06","modified_gmt":"2019-03-02T07:37:06","slug":"hemant-gaur-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-21-december-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hemant-gaur-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-21-december-2001","title":{"rendered":"Hemant Gaur And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 21 December, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Hemant Gaur And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 21 December, 2001<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2002 IAD Delhi 617<\/div>\n
Author: A Sikri<\/div>\n
Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
A.K. Sikri, J.<\/p>\n
1. The case relates to admission to the Bridge
\nCourse conducted by Respondent No. 4, namely, YMCA
\nInstitute of Engineering (hereinafter to be called as
\n‘YMCA Institute’ for short), after being approved by
\nRespondent No. 2 i.e. All Indian Council for
\nTechnical Education (hereinafter to be called as
\n‘AICTE’ for short). Two sets of students are staking
\ntheir claims for admission to this course; one group
\nconsists of those students who passed the Post Diploma
\nCourse\/Advance Diploma Course in the years 1995-96 and
\n1996-97 (hereinafter to be called as ‘first category’
\nfor short) and the other group represents those
\nstudents who passed their Post Graduate Diploma Course
\nin the academic year prior to 1995-96 (hereinafter to
\nbe referred to as ‘second category’). The chequered
\nhistory of these cases is stated in substantial details
\nby the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment
\ndated 30.10.2001 and, therefore, it would not be
\nnecessary to repeat the same. However, the facts
\nessential for disposal of the present appeal are
\nnecessarily to be stated. It would be prudent to refer
\nto these facts first so that the controversy is
\nappreciated in its proper perspective.\n<\/p>\n
2. Till the year 1995-96 YMCA Institute was
\noffering Post Diploma Course in Engineering in various
\ndisciplines such as Electrical, Computer, Mechanical
\netc. After the promulgation of All India Technical
\nEducation Act, the recognition by AICTE under this
\nenactment for continuing or starting in such a course
\nbecame imperative. In the year 1995-96 AICTE accorded
\napproval to YMCA Institute for this course which was
\nrenamed as Advance Diploma Course in place of Post
\nDiploma Course known earlier subject to the conditions
\nthat:\n<\/p>\n
A. the entry level be raised from 11th to
\n12th,<\/p>\n
B. the duration of the course shall be four
\nyears after 12th class examination and  <\/p>\n
C. the Institute should carry out
\nmodifications by adding tonics in the course contents
\nof various courses as suggested.\n<\/p>\n
3. In the year 1997-98 the Government of Haryana
\nupgraded the course of B.Tech Programme. Students
\nstudying Advance Diploma Course made representation for
\napproving of a Bridge Course for those students who had
\nsuccessfully completed Advance Diploma Course to enable
\nthem to have a degree. As AICTE did not accede to
\ntheir representation, CWP. No. 7364\/99 was filed in this
\nCourt. It was allowed by judgment dated 20.9.2000
\nissuing a Writ of Mandamus directing AICTE to accord
\napproval for having the Bridge Course for students who
\nhad studied and were studying Advance Diploma Course in
\nthe YMCA Institute. This was Writ Petition filed by
\n102 students of YMCA Institute who had passed out
\nAdvance Diploma Course after being admitted to the
\ncourse in the year 1996-97 i.e. those belonging to
\nfirst category.\n<\/p>\n
4. After this writ petition was decided, AICTE by
\nletters dated 16.4.2001 and 28.8.2001 informed the YMCA
\nInstitute that it had approved to conduct of one year
\nfull Bridge Course leading to the degree in
\nEngineering. The Bridge Course was approved with an
\nintake of 225 students subject to certain conditions.
\nIt may be mentioned that AICTE has satisfied itself
\nthat YMCA Institute fulfillled these conditions. This
\nis the result of inspection done by the inspection team
\nwhich has visited the Institute on 5.9.2001 and,
\ntherefore, approved the infrastructure available
\nconducting the Bridge Course with intake of 225
\nstudents.\n<\/p>\n
5. Since there was delay in implementation of the
\njudgment dated 20.9.2000, CM. 8458\/2001 was filed in
\nCW. 7364\/1999 by the petitioners in that writ petition.
\nAt this stage it may be mentioned that certain other
\nstudents also filed CWP. No. 2861\/2001 seeking a prayer
\nthat benefit of judgment dated 20.9.2000 passed in
\nCW. No. 7364\/99 be extended to them. This petition and
\nCMP. 8458\/2001 were disposed of by order dated
\n11.9.2001 giving the direction to give admission to all
\nthe petitioners of CW. No. 7364\/99 and CW. No. 2861\/2001 in
\nthe first instance and fill up the remaining seats from
\namong the students who had passed 10+2 examination with
\nPhysics, Chemistry and Mathematics strictly in
\naccordance with merits of the applicants. It would be
\npertinent to note here that CWP. No. 2861\/2001 was filed
\nby four petitioners who were the students who had
\npassed their course prior to the academic year 1995-96
\nand were awarded Post Diploma Course in Engineering
\ni.e. they belong to second category.\n<\/p>\n
6. The effect of aforesaid orders was to give
\nadmission to the petitioners in CWP. No. 7364\/99 and
\nCWP. No. 2861\/2001 (106 students in all) and thereafter
\nto fill the remaining seats strictly on merits.\n<\/p>\n
7. For filling up the remaining seats a question
\narose, viz, whether the first category students only
\nwere to be considered or students for both the
\ncategories were to be considered in accordance with
\nmerits. The appellants herein who belong to first
\ncategory filed CW. 6184\/2001 wherein they claim that
\nthey are at par with the students in CWP. No. 7364\/99
\nand, therefore, they should also be given admission to
\nthe Bridge Course as a matter of right. On the other
\nhand students belonging to second category filed a
\nbatch of writ petitions contending that they belong to
\nsame class and all students who had passed out either
\nPost Diploma Course in Engineering i.e. prior to
\n1995-96 or Advance Diploma Course in Engineering i.e.
\nafter 1996-97 be admitted to the course strictly in
\naccordance with merits.\n<\/p>\n
8. All these writ petitions came up for
\nconsideration before the learned Single Judge who
\npassed impugned judgment dated 30.10.2001. The learned
\nSingle Judge discussed the nature of two diplomas at
\ngreat length and came to the conclusion that there was
\nno difference between the two diplomas, namely, Post
\nDiploma Course and Advance Diploma Course. As per the
\nopinion of the learned Single Judge the only change
\nmade after the course was to rename it as Advance
\nDiploma and entry level was raised from Class 11 to
\nClass 12 +. Learned Single Judge further held that as
\nmost of the students who had taken admission in the
\nPost Diploma Course prior to academic year 1995-96 had
\npassed their class 12 before taking admission in the
\nsaid course, the students of second category could not
\nbe differentiated. This conclusion finds expression in
\nthe following portion of the impugned judgment:\n<\/p>\n
 “A perusal of all the aforesaid orders
\nand the correspondence exchanged between
\nthe Government of Haryana and the AICTE
\nlead to only one conclusion that the
\nbridge course was open to all students
\nwho had either passed their post-diploma
\ncourse in engineering or the advance
\ndiploma course in engineering provided
\nthey were admitted in these course after
\nclearing 10+2 examination conducted by
\nthe recognised board of education. There
\ncannot, therefore, be any discrimination
\nbetween students who had passed
\npost-diploma or the advance diploma
\ncourse since they have passed similar
\nexamination with same syllabi and were
\nadmitted to these course after their
\nhaving passed 10+2 examination with
\nPhysics, Chemistry and Mathematics. I,
\ntherefore, do not see any reason as to
\nwhy the students who had passed their
\npost-diploma course in engineering after
\nbeing validly admitted to the course
\nprior to the academic year 1995-96 should
\nbe denied admission in the bridge course
\nleading to the grant of a B.Tech degree
\nin engineering as the initial letter of
\n19th May, 1999 written by the Government
\nof Haryana to the All India Council for
\nTechnical Education clearly states that
\nthe bridge course was meant for the
\nstudents of both the post diploma course
\nas well as the advance diploma course”.\n<\/p>\n
9. The impugned judgment also refers to the
\ncircumstances under which orders were passed in the
\nearlier writ petitions, namely, CWP. No. 7346\/99 and
\nCWP. No. 2861\/2001 whereby students of both the
\ncategories were directed to be admitted to the Bridge
\nCourse. It also noted that fact that the earlier orders
\ndated 28.5.2001 and 11.9.2001 had not been challenged
\nby any party and had attained finality. This
\ndiscussion to this effect runs thus:\n<\/p>\n
 “Since the only condition of the AICTE
\nfor admission to the bridge course was
\nthat the students who had cleared their
\npost-diploma course in engineering must
\nhave cleared their 10+2 examination
\nbefore being admitted to the post-diploma
\ncourse, the court in its judgment dated
\n28.5.2001 directed the respondents to
\nadmit the petitioners in CWP. No. 2861\/2001
\nin the bridge course approved by AICTE for
\nthe grant of degree in engineering. This
\ndirection was given because the
\npetitioners in that petition had passed
\n10+2 examination before being admitted in
\nthe post-diploma course in engineering.
\nIt was in the light of the above facts
\nthat this Court in its order passed on
\n11.9.2001 on an application being CM
\nNo. 7203\/2001 filed in CWP. No. 7364\/99, had
\ndirected the institute to start the
\ncourse w.e.f. 15th October, 2001 and give
\nadmission to all the petitioners of CWP
\nNo. 7364\/1999 and 2861\/2001 in the first
\ninstance. The Court had further directed
\nthat the remaining seats available with
\nthe Institute will be filled up by the
\neligible candidates from amongst the
\nstudents who had passed minimum 10+2
\nexamination with Physics, Chemistry and
\nMathematics and admission will be done
\nstrictly in accordance with merits of the
\napplicants who might apply for being
\nadmitted to the course. Neither the
\norder dated 28th May, 2001 nor the order
\ndated 11th September, 2001 have been
\nchallenged by any party and they have
\nthus become final”.\n<\/p>\n
10. After recording the aforesaid opinion the
\npetition was disposed of with the following direction:\n<\/p>\n
 “In view of the foregoing discussion, I
\ndirect the respondents to admit all the
\neligible candidates who had passed their
\npost-diploma course or the advance
\ndiploma course in engineering after being
\nadmitted to the courses after passing
\nminimum 10+2 examination with Physics,
\nChemistry and Mathematics, strictly in
\naccordance with the merits of the
\napplicants who have applied for being
\nadmitted to the course. The candidates
\nwho may be left out and are not admitted
\nto the course because of their being low
\nin merits will be eligible for taking
\nadmission in the bridge course in the
\nacademic year 2002-2003. With these
\nobservations, the petition stands
\ndisposed of”.\n<\/p>\n
11. The position that emerges from the aforesaid
\ndiscussion can be summarised in the following manner:\n<\/p>\n
1. The AICTE has accorded permission to YMCA
\nInstitute for Bridge Course for the grant of degree in
\nEngineering in respect of those students who had passed
\n10+2 Examination and thereafter done Post Diploma
\nCourse or Advance Diploma Course from YMCA Institute.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Bridge Course was approved with an
\nintake of 225 students.\n<\/p>\n
3. By Order dated 11.9.2001 direction was
\ngiven, while disposing of CM. 8458\/2001 filed in
\nCW. 7364\/1999 and CW. 2861\/2001, to admit all the
\npetitioners in the aforesaid two writ petitions in the
\nfirst instance i.e. give admission to 106 students on
\npreferential basis.\n<\/p>\n
4. Remaining seats were directed to be filled
\nstrictly in accordance with merits.\n<\/p>\n
5. As per the impugned judgment rendered on
\n30.10.2001 these remaining seats were to be filled
\nstrictly in accordance with merits of the applicants
\nbelonging to both the categories.\n<\/p>\n
6. The candidates who may be left out and not
\nadmitted because of their being low in merit would be
\neligible for taking admission in the Bridge Course in
\nthe academic year 2002-2003.\n<\/p>\n
12. The appellants herein who were the petitioners
\nin CWP. No. 6184\/2001 and belong to first category wanted
\npreferential treatment in the same manner in which the
\npetitioners in CWP. No. 7364\/99 were given benefit.
\nTherefore, they were not satisfied with the impugned
\njudgment as per which they had to compete with the
\nstudents belonging to second category and admissions
\nwere to be given on the basis of inter-se merits of
\nthese students. Therefore, they have filed the present
\nappeal challenging the impugned judgment of the learned
\nSingle Judge.\n<\/p>\n
13. Certain developments which have taken place
\nafter the filing of the present appeal would now be
\nnoticed as they have bearing on the disposal of this
\nappeal. This appeal came up for hearing on 6.11.2001
\nwhen notice to show cause why appeal be not admitted
\nwas issued to the respondents, returnable on 5.12.2001.
\nIn CM. 1479\/2001 filed by the appellants herein
\ndirection was issued to the effect that 13 seats of the
\nBridge Course in the respective discipline of the
\nappellant be not filled up by YMCA Institute till the
\nnext date of hearing. This order was served upon YMCA
\nInstitute i.e. Respondent No. 4 on the same date when
\ncounselling was being done and students were admitted.
\nThere is some dispute about the timing of the service
\nof the communication of the order and to this effect we
\nshall address at the appropriate stage. What is
\nrequired to be mentioned at this stage in that the YMCA
\nInstitute had completed the admission process.
\nHowever, 13 students who were admitted and fee taken
\nwere not allowed to join the course because of the
\naforesaid interim order. These 13 students have filed
\nintervention application in this appeal seeking to
\nintervene in this case and opposing the present appeal
\nfiled by the appellants and submitting that they should
\nbe allowed to joint the course on the basis of admission
\nrightfully granted to them.\n<\/p>\n
14. Mr. N.K. Kaul, learned counsel appearing for the
\nappellants pointed out that the learned Single Judge in
\nhis impugned judgment formulated the point involved at
\nPage-2 thereof by observing that the question to be
\ndecided was as to whether the admission in the Bridge
\nCourse was open only to those students who belong to
\nfirst category and not open to those who belong to
\nsecond category. According to Mr. Kaul, learned Single
\njudge fell in error by formulating this question and
\nthereafter addressing this question in the impugned
\njudgment. It is because the prayer made by the
\nappellants in the Writ Petition filled by them as to
\nthe effect that since they were similarly situated as
\nthe writ petitioners in the CWP. No. 7364\/99, the
\nappellants were also entitled to the same benefit which
\nwas given to them by orders dated 20.9.2000. In other
\nwords it was submitted that they were also entitled to
\nthe same preferential treatment and were entitled to
\nthe admission in the same manner in which 102
\npetitioners in W.P. No. 7364\/99 were given as they belong
\nto the same category. The learned counsel further
\nreferred to various communications exchanged between
\nAICTE and the Institute as well as Haryana University
\nas per which the Bridge Course was meant only for the
\nstudents belonging to ‘first category’ i.e. for
\nbatches of 1995-96 and 1996-97 and, therefore, for all
\nthese students there had to be an automatic admission.
\nIt was sought to be suggested that if the matter is
\nlooked into from this angle, all the students belonging
\nto first category should have got automatic admission
\nand only balance seats that remained unfilled should
\nhave gone to the students belonging to second category
\nas per their ranking in the merit. It was submitted
\nthat by excluding the appellants although belonging to
\nsame category as petitioners in CW. 7364\/99 a class
\nwithin class was sought to be treated which was clearly
\ndiscriminatory and impermissible.\n<\/p>\n
15. In the alternative, it was submitted that even
\nif all the appellants were to be accommodated the
\nrespondents were supposed to create only three more
\nseats and if respondents adopt this course, all the
\npersons who were given admission and have not joined
\nbecause of the stay order and have filed impleadment
\napplications as well as all the appellants would be
\nadjusted.\n<\/p>\n
16. Challenging the aforesaid stand taken by
\nlearned counsel for the appellants it was submitted on
\nbehalf of YMCA Institute that the appellants were
\nmaking false claims by contending that there were two
\nbatches who had studied Advance Diploma Course i.e.
\n1995-96 and 1996-97. In fact there was only one batch
\nwho studied the Advance Diploma Course i.e. 1996-97
\nand the appellants who did Diploma Course in the year
\n1995-96 were in fact fully aware that they were the
\nstudents of Post Diploma Course and had been making
\nfalse statement that they had completed Advance Diploma
\nCourse. Therefore, they could not equate themselves
\nwith 1996-97 batch and the appellants also could not be
\nthe beneficiary of the judgment in CW. 7364\/99 which
\nrelated to the students of 1996-97 batch only. It was
\nsubmitted that the appellants became entitled to Bridge
\nCourse in view of judgment dated 30.10.2001 as per
\nwhich all the eligible candidates who had passed their
\nPost Diploma Course or Advance Diploma Course in
\nEngineering after being admitted to the course after
\npossessing minimum 10+2 qualification with Physics,
\nChemistry and Mathematics strictly in accordance with
\nmerits of the applicants who had applied for admission
\nof this course. But for this impugned judgment dated
\n30.10.2001 the appellants were not entitled to any
\nbenefit. Therefore, they had no right to challenge
\nthis judgment. It was also submitted that the
\nappellants were found to be extremely low in the merit
\nexcept two and due to this reason they could not be
\nadmitted to the Bridge Course.\n<\/p>\n
17. Mr. Sandip Srivastava, Mr. Gagan Gupta,
\nMr. M.M. Kalra and Mr. Pramod Ahuja, Advocates made
\nsubmissions on behalf of intervenors and they also
\ncontested the claim for the appellants herein. Their
\ncontention was that both the categories of students
\nformed same class as similarly situated and, therefore,
\nthe direction of the learned Single Judge in giving
\nadmission to them strictly on merit was perfectly
\njustified. It was further submitted that these
\nintervenors were much higher in merit than the
\nappellants and, therefore, they had prior right in
\ngetting the admission and accordingly were rightly
\nadmitted by the YMCA Institute. In fact the
\napplicants\/intervenors in CMs. 1504-05\/2001 belong to
\n1996-97 batch (i.e. the first category) and,
\ntherefore, in any case they had much better claim than
\nthe appellants when their position in merit list was
\nalso superior to that of the appellants. Likewise
\napplicants in CM. 1607\/2001 belong to 1995-96 batch like
\nthe appellants but were given the admission because of
\ntheir higher merit. Their admission, therefore, could
\nnot be denied on any reckoning.\n<\/p>\n
18. After considering the respective submissions,
\nwe are of the opinion that the directions given in the
\nimpugned judgment of the learned Single Judge deserve
\nto be upheld. There is no denial of the fact that the
\npetitioners in CW. 7364\/99 belonged to 1996-97 batch.
\nIt is on their petition who had done Advance Diploma
\nCourse that the direction was given to start the Bridge
\nCourse. Admittedly the appellants had done Post
\nDiploma Course. Even if this Post Diploma Course was
\nsame as Advance Diploma Course, then as far as the
\nappellants are concerned they cannot say that their
\ncase was on a better footing than the case of those
\nstudents who had done this Course prior to 1995-96.
\nThe learned Single Judge was right in holding that the
\nonly condition of AICTE for admission to the Bridge
\nCourse that the students who had cleared their Post
\nDiploma Course in Engineering must have cleared their
\n10+2 examination before being admitted to the Post
\nDiploma Course. Therefore, when the students belonging
\nto second category are also the students of 10+2 and
\ndone Post Diploma Course they stand on same footing and
\nno discrimination can be meted out by excluding second
\ncategory students from admission to Bridge Course and
\nconfining the same only to the first category of
\nstudents.\n<\/p>\n
19. Insofar as giving the preferential treatment
\nto the petitioners in CW. 7364\/99 and CW. 2861\/2001 is
\nconcerned, order to that effect was passed on
\n20.9.2000. This order was not challenged by any
\nperson. This order became final. Therefore, when the
\nlearned Single Judge was deciding the writ petition
\nfiled by the appellants herein which has lead to passing
\nof the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge had to
\nproceed on the basis that order of 20.9.2000 had become
\nfinal. As per this order the petitioners in CW. 7364\/99
\nas well as CW. 2861\/2001 were to be given admission in
\nthe first instance and the remaining seats were to be
\nfilled up among the eligible students strictly in
\naccordance with merit of the applicants. Therefore,
\nthe only question which fell for determination was
\nregarding the parity between the two categories of
\nstudents. The learned Single Judge rightly formulated
\nthis question and focussed his attention to the same.
\nWhen the learned Single Judge found and correctly so
\nthat students of both the categories belong to same
\nclass, the direction was rightly given in the impugned
\njudgment to the effect that the applicants from both
\ncategories who had applied for the admission will have
\nto be admitted and while giving them admission, the
\ncriteria as already laid down by order dated 20.9.2000
\nin earlier writ petitions had to be applied, namely,
\nit was to be done strictly in accordance with merits.
\nIf the writ of the appellants herein was to be allowed,
\nit would have the effect of disturbing the order dated
\n20.9.2000 which had otherwise become final. Therefore,
\nwe do not find any infirmity in the order of learned
\nSingle Judge which is hereby upheld. Resultantly 13
\npersons who were given admission on the implementation
\nof the judgment of the learned Single Judge have a
\nright to join the course and attend the classes as
\nstudents properly admitted to the said course. Their
\nintervention applications are accordingly allowed.\n<\/p>\n
20. At this stage we may examine alternate
\nconditions of the learned counsel for the appellants.
\nBy giving preferential treatment to the students who
\nwere the petitioners in CW. 7364\/99 and CW. 2861\/2001,
\nsome students have been given preferential treatment
\nand got automatic admission although they may be
\notherwise below in the merit than the appellants
\nherein. Position would have been different had all the
\n225 seats been filled strictly in accordance with
\nmerit. That has not happened. There were 106 (102+4)
\npetitioners in CW. 7364\/99 and CW. 2861\/2001 who became
\nentitled to automatic admission by virtue of order
\ndated 20.9.2000. In the first counselling for them, 99
\nstudents approached and were given admission. In the
\nsecond counselling which was done strictly according to
\nmerit, 118 students are admitted. This include 13
\nstudents who are the intervenors. In this way 217
\nseats have been filled leaving a balance of 8 seats.
\nOut of 13 appellants to appellants have been admitted
\non the basis of their merit. This leaves 11 appellants
\nand 8 vacant seats. Therefore, if all the appellants
\nare to be accommodated, 3 more seats are to be created.
\nWhen the matter was argued on 7.12.2001 we had put it
\nto counsel for YMCA Institute as well as AICTE as to
\nwhether they would be able to accommodate these
\nstudents. This information was sought without
\nstraining their resources and in the peculiar facts of
\nthis case. The learned counsel for YMCA Institute
\nreplied in the affirmative. Since the recognition from
\nAICTE is also required, learned counsel for AICTE
\nMr. C. Badrinath Babu submitted that he would be able to
\ninform about this aspect after having instructions from
\nAICTE on 11.12.2001. Learned counsel on 11.12.2001
\ninformed the court that AICTE would be able to give the
\napproval to YMCA Institute by increasing the three
\nseats provided that, no more students are admitted.
\nSince these appellants had filed Writ Petition
\nimmediately after the orders of 20.9.2000 and,
\ntherefore, were alive of their rights for which they
\napproached the Court, it was considered appropriate and
\nequitable if these appellants are also accommodated for
\nwhich only three seats are to be created. After all
\nthe four students who were petitioners in CW. 2861\/2001
\nand belong to second category got their admission and
\npreferential right only because they had approached
\nthis court by filling CW. 2861\/2001. No other person has
\ncome to this court. By giving admission to these three
\npersons, more so when AICTE as well as YMCA Institute
\nstate that these three seats can be created and
\napproved, it would be equitable to adjust all these 11
\nappellants. We order accordingly directing the YMCA
\nInstitute to admit these 11 appellants as well.\n<\/p>\n
21. We make it clear that since the course has
\nalready started and with admission to these appellants
\nas well as intervenors all seats stand filled and there
\nis no other person to lay claim, no other student would
\nnow be given any admission. As per the direction
\ncontained in the impugned judgment those students who
\nwere left out and could not be accommodated shall be
\neligible for taking admission in the Bridge Course in
\nthe year 2002-2003. In the peculiar case of such a
\nnature, the parties who have not come to the Court
\nwould not be entitled to the benefit of the judgment as
\nheld by Supreme Court in the case of  Bhoop Sing v.
\nUnion of India and Ors.  and<\/a> in the
\ncase reported in 1995 SCC (L&S) 1140. We also make it
\nclear that direction given to admit the appellants is
\nin the peculiar facts of this case and would not act as
\nprecedent.\n<\/p>\n
22. As already mentioned above suo moto show cause
\nnotice was issued to the Director, YMCA Institute for
\ninitiating contempt of court proceedings. Respondent
\nNo. 4 has, in answer to this show cause notice,
\nsubmitted his explanation. From this explanation, we
\nare satisfied that the Director or for the matter YMCA
\nauthorities had not violated the injunction order dated
\n6.11.2001 willfully or contumaciously. We accordingly
\ndrop these proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
23. With the aforesaid observations, this appeal
\nand all miscellaneous applications stand disposed of.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Hemant Gaur And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 21 December, 2001 Equivalent citations: 2002 IAD Delhi 617 Author: A Sikri Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The case relates to admission to the Bridge Course conducted by Respondent No. 4, namely, YMCA Institute of Engineering […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-92644","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHemant Gaur And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 21 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hemant-gaur-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-21-december-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hemant Gaur And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 21 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hemant-gaur-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-21-december-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-02T07:37:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hemant-gaur-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-21-december-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hemant-gaur-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-21-december-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hemant Gaur And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 21 December, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-02T07:37:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hemant-gaur-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-21-december-2001\"},\"wordCount\":4147,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hemant-gaur-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-21-december-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hemant-gaur-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-21-december-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hemant-gaur-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-21-december-2001\",\"name\":\"Hemant Gaur And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 21 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-02T07:37:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hemant-gaur-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-21-december-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hemant-gaur-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-21-december-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hemant-gaur-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-21-december-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hemant Gaur And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 21 December, 2001\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Hemant Gaur And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 21 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hemant-gaur-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-21-december-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hemant Gaur And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 21 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hemant-gaur-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-21-december-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-02T07:37:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hemant-gaur-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-21-december-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hemant-gaur-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-21-december-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hemant Gaur And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 21 December, 2001","datePublished":"2001-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-02T07:37:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hemant-gaur-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-21-december-2001"},"wordCount":4147,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hemant-gaur-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-21-december-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hemant-gaur-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-21-december-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hemant-gaur-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-21-december-2001","name":"Hemant Gaur And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 21 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-02T07:37:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hemant-gaur-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-21-december-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hemant-gaur-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-21-december-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hemant-gaur-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-21-december-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hemant Gaur And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 21 December, 2001"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92644","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=92644"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92644\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=92644"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=92644"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=92644"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}