Vandana Chauhan v. University of Delhi

1. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 29 April, 2015 ofthe learned Single Judge of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.4285/2015 preferred by the appellant.

2. The counsel for the respondent appears on advance notice and we have, considering the urgency expressed and with the consent of the counsels heard the appeal finally.

3. The writ petition from which this appeal arises was filed impugning the eligibility criteria of 50% qualifying marks fixed by the respondent LPA 268/2015 Page 1 of[3] 2015:DHC:11735-DB I University for admission its law degree course. It was / is the contention of i the appellant that the eligibility criteria of 50% qualifying marks fixed by I the respondent University is contrary to the eligibility criteria of45% fixed i bythe Bar Council of India (BCI). The appellant claims to have 48% marks I in graduation course in Arts stream from the School of Open Learning, I University of Delhi and contends that she should be allowed to at least j appear and take the entrance test and cannot be baiTcd at the threshold, i 4. The learned Single Judge has held that the BCI has only specified the minimum percentage of marks required to be secured by candidates in the i qualifying examination to be eligible for applying and getting admitted for a degree course in LLB; the said mle only means that no institution shall entertain an application for admission to the LLB course from candidates who have secured below the specified threshold; however the same does not in any manner fetter the University from specifying an eligibility which is higher than the one that is specified by the BCI and therefore no flaw could be found in the respondent University specifying 50% aggregate marks in graduation degree as an eligibility condition for appearing in the entrance examination. Accordingly, thewrit petition was dismissed.

5. The counsel for the appellant before us has argued that the appellant, otherwise a brilliant student, for family reasons was unable to score well in her graduation and ifpermitted to take the entrance examination, is likely to be high up inthemerit and likely to be admitted.

6. Per contra, the counsel for the'respondent has invited attention to oui judgment dated C August, 2014 in LPA No.433/2014 \i\lQdApoorv Yadav LPA 268/2015 Page 2of[3] r Vs. University of Delhi, though concerned with the rules relating to attendance but noticing the stand of the BCI that its rules provide for minimum standards of legal education and the universities and / or institutions can set higher standards of education in conformity with the minimum standards of legal education as prescribed by the BCI and thus upholding the rule of the respondent University of laying down higher requirements for attendance than prescribed by the BCI.

7. The counsel for the respondent is correct in his contention that the ratio ofApoorv Yadav (supra) squarely applies to the eligibility marks also.

8. We therefore do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the appeal. MAY 01, 2015 'gsr'.. LPA 268/2015 CHIEF JUSTICE JIV SAHAIENDLAW, J Page 3 of[3]