Vineeta Soni v. University of Delhi & Anr.

1. This appeal arises out of judgment dated 17.4.2013 in Writ Petition

(Civil) No. 2500/2013 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. The appellant in June, 2012, had applied for admission to the B.Ed course with respondent No.1/Delhi University. At the time when the application for admission was made, the result of the qualifying examination of the appellant had not been declared. The appellant was granted provisional admission on 5.7.2012. The course commenced from 23.7.2012 and the appellant was permitted to attend the classes as well as the School Experience Programme. 2013:DHC:2112

2. The respondent No.1/ University had fixed the date of 31.8.2012 as the deadline for submitting the result of the qualifying examination. It is the case of the appellant that by 31.8.2012, the result of her qualifying examination had still not been declared. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that she was permitted to attend classes upto December, 2012, however, vide notice dated 11.12.2012, respondent No.2 directed the appellant not to attend classes with immediate effect. By another notice dated 17.12.2012, respondent No.1 extended the date of submission of the result of the qualifying examination before 1.00 PM on 17.12.2012. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that even upto 17.12.2012 the result of the qualifying examination of the appellant had not been declared.

3. It is the case of the appellant that on 2.1.2013, the respondents put up a notice whereby certain other students were allowed to deposit their fees. The result of the appellant is stated to have been declared on 14.1.2013. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is only on 31.1.2013 that she could submit the result of her qualifying examination. The appellant, after submitting the result of the qualifying examination on 31.1.2013, requested the respondents to scrutinize the same and accept the fees from her, this request of the appellant was declined. The appellant approached this Court by way of a writ petition being WP(C) No.1646/2013. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 19.3.2013, however, leave was granted to the appellant to make a representation to the Vice-Chancellor. The appellant, thereafter, in terms of the leave granted, made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor of the University. The said representation has been declined and as such the appellant filed the writ petition No.2500/2013, order of which is assailed in this appeal.

4. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned order has held that the matter had attained finality when the earlier writ petition, i.e., WP(C) No.1646/2013 was dismissed and leave, as sought, was granted to make a representation. The learned Single Judge further held that the rejection of the representation of the appellant by the Vice-Chancellor would not give a right to the appellant to re-agitate the question which had been decided by the order dated 19.3.2013 in WP(C) No.1646 of 2013.

5. We find no infirmity in the order dated 17.4.2013. No doubt, vide order dated 19.3.2013 passed in the earlier writ petition leave was granted to the appellant to make a representation to the Vice-Chancellor, the order, however, denied the relief to the appellant on merits of the matter. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 19.3.2013 in WP(C) No.1646/2013 found that it was not in dispute that the result of the appellant with respect to her qualifying examination was neither declared by 31.8.2012, i.e., the last date fixed by the University nor upto 17.12.2012 which was the extended dated fixed by the University. It was also held that the appellant was not granted permanent admission nor the appellant had paid her fees except that she was allowed to attend classes upto December, 2012. The academic session was nearing its end and as such the relief was not granted to the appellant and the writ petition was disposed of.

6. Mr.M.J.S.Rupal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has submitted that leave to file representation was not granted by way of a relief to the appellant but the leave was sought for and granted on a prayer made by the appellant after the Court had dismissed the writ. Learned counsel further submits that once a relief was declined by the Court in the first instance, the appellant would not get a right to re-agitate the issue merely on the ground that leave was granted to make a representation. The order declining the representation would not give rise to fresh cause of action.

7. On a query to the learned counsel for the respondent as to in what circumstances, the extension was granted to certain students upto 17.12.2012. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the extension beyond 31.8.2012 upto 17.12.2012 was granted in view of the fact that results of certain qualifying examinations conducted by respondent No.1/University itself had been delayed and as such the period was extended upto 17.12.2012. With respect to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that certain other students were permitted to deposit their fees even vide notice dated 2.1.2013, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that it was only those students who had submitted the requisite documentation and the result of the qualifying examination by 17.12.2012 who were permitted to deposit the fee after scrutiny of the requisite documents submitted by them.

8. We are in agreement with the finding of the learned Single Judge that in view of the fact that the relief prayed for in the earlier writ petition being WP(C) No.1646/2013 filed by the appellant having been declined, the appellant could not get a right to re-agitate the issue afresh merely on the ground that the representation was not decided in favour of the appellant. The fact that the admission of the appellant was only provisional and the appellant did not submit the requisite documents and the result of the qualifying examination upto 31.8.2012, i.e., the original date fixed by the University or upto expiry of the extended period on 17.12.2012. We find no infirmity in the impugned order.

9. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. APRIL 26, 2013 SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. sv