Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 03.09.2013
MOHIT SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr K. Venkatraman, Adv.
Through: Mr Vaibhav Kalra, and Ms Sumedha, Advs for GGSIPU
JUDGMENT
CM No.12253/2013 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
The petitioner before this Court appeared in the Common Entrance
Examination held by the respondent I.P. University to its B.Ed. programme, 2013-
2014. In the first round of counseling result for which was declared on 24.07.2013, the petitioner was allotted a seat in B.Tech. (IT) in Chaudhary Brahm Prakash 2013:DHC:4355 Government Engineering College and he deposited the requisite fee in the said college. Since the candidates taking admission in the first round of counseling, were also entitled to participate in the second round of counseling for the purpose of upgradation, the petitioner also appeared in the second counseling held between 27.07.2013 to 30.07.2013 and was granted admission in Tool Engineering in Delhi Institute of Tool Engineering. The petitioner accepted the said admission and started attending the classes with effect from 06.08.2013. However, after 15.08.2013, the petitioner was not permitted to attend classes in Delhi Institute of Tool Engineering on the ground that the University had granted him admission in the Electronic and Communication Engineering in G.P. Pant Government Engineering College in the 3rd counseling for admission to the B.Tech course. The case of the petitioner is that since he never participated in the 03rd round of counseling, it was not open to the University to cancel the admission granted to him in Delhi Institute of Tool Engineering in the second round of counseling. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court seeking the following reliefs:- “(a) Issue appropriate writ of certiorari or any other writ for setting aside the impugned decision/instruction dated 07.08.2013 issued by Respondent No. 1 to the extent of instruction given at Sl. No.3(a), consequent oral decision cancelling the admission in the institute of Respondent No. 2 be declared illegal and arbitrary and consequent decision of the respondent No. 1 to forcibly asked the petitioner to join the institute of respondent NO. 3 be also declared illegal and arbitrary, untenable in law; (b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other direction directing the respondent No. 1/2 to restore the admission of the petitioner in Tool Engineering of Delhi Institute of Tool Engineer forthwith and allow the petitioner to attend the classes in the said institute”
2. The learned counsel for the University, who appears on advance notice, however, relies upon the following clause contained in directions/procedures for candidates who participated in the first and second round of counseling and procedure for the third round of counseling notified on 02.08.2013:-
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ S.No. Category of candidates Action to be │ │ taken │ ├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 1. Xx xx │ │ 2. xx Xx │ │ 3. a) Those candidates who have qualified a)The candidates who are │ │ CET and had filled choices/ preferences, satisfied with their │ │ W.P.(C) 5499/2013 Page 3 of 7 │ │ 2013:DHC:4355 │ │ and have been allotted college/ institute preference/ choice may │ │ of their first choice/ preference and are log-in to their respective │ │ now satisfied and do not wish to change account and modify by │ │ their choice/ preferences. deleting all other │ │ preferences/ choices. The │ │ candidates must keep only │ │ the allotted college/ branch │ │ as their only preference/ │ │ choice. If the candidates do │ │ not do so, they may be │ │ further upgraded to other │ │ preferences/ choices and │ │ the university will not be │ │ held responsible for the │ │ consequences and if any │ │ college/ branch is allotted │ │ in the 3rd round, it will be │ │ treated as final. │ │ 3. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in W.P.(C) No. │ │ 5456/2013, decided on 02.09.2013. The petitioner in that case applied for │ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
4. The learned counsel for the respondent- University states that this being an online counseling, the system on account of the petitioner not deleting the remaining options exercised by him, itself made allotment to him in an institute, which was higher in the Order of Preference exercised by him. In my view, it would not be appropriate for the University to penalize the petitioner, for not deleting the remaining options, because, the said stipulation came to be incorporated only in the schedule of the 03rd counselling, and a candidate, who does not want to participate in the 03rd counselling, is not expected to take note of this stipulation.”
4. Moreover, since the instruction relied upon by the learned counsel for the University came to be notified only on 07.08.2013, the petitioner, who was granted admission in the counseling held between 27.07.2013 to 30.7.2013 and having been granted admission in Delhi Institute of Tool Engineering on 02.08.2013 and started attending classes there with effect from 06.08.2013 was not expected to keep himself posted with the instructions issued vide circular dated 07.08.2013 in case he was satisfied with the seat made available to him in the second round of counseling.
5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the order of the University, cancelling the admission made to the petitioner in Delhi Institute of Tool Engineering is hereby quashed and it is directed that the University shall allow the petitioner to continue to study in the said college in terms of the admission earlier granted to him.
6. The learned counsel for the University states that the seat which was allotted to the petitioner in Delhi Institute of Tool Engineering has been allotted by the University to another student and therefore is not available. In my view, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for no fault on his part. The University, therefore, can either accommodate the student who has been granted admission in place of the petitioner in Delhi Institute of Tool Engineering in another institute of his choice or it may create a supernumerary seat in Delhi Institute of Tool Engineering to accommodate him. The writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. V.K. JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 03, 2013 BG