Full Text
Translation output
\ ·, 9#
% 04.07.2011
Present:- Mr. Pramod Kumar for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Chauphary for UOI.
Mr. MJS Rupal for the respondent University.
+W.~.(C) No. 4555/2011 & CM No. 9258/2011
By this petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to direct the respondent University to grant 27o/o reservation to the OBC category candidates. The petitioner also seeks directions to direct the respondent to quash the clause 2.1.6 of the Prospectus of the Delhi University, whereby they have fixed a certain number of seats for the OBC category ignoring
.. '
- the criteria of 27% ·reservation to the said category as per law.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
By this petition the petitioner has raised a grievance that the respondent University of Delhi has not implemented the policy of the Government to grant
2011:DHC:17648 reservation of 27o/o seats for OBC category for which three years time phase was granted by the Government commencing from the year 2008-2009. It is also the stand of the petitioner that for the implementation of the said Government policy, the Government has already released the necessary funds for the infrastructure etc. The petitioner has also tak~n a stand that some of the universities have already implemented the said Government policy and non implementation of the said policy by the respondent
University of Delhi is against the fundamental right of all those individuals who belong to the OBC category. It is also the case of the petitioner that if 27% reservation to the OBC category is given by the respondent university then the petitioner who has secured 105 rank in the OBC category will have fair chances of his admission.
During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner has also apprised this court that the petitioner has already made a representation with the respondent University to implement the said Government policy of granting 27% reservation to the OBC candidates.
11!1 !II
% 04.07.2011
Present:- Mr. Pramod Kumar for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Chauphary for UOI.
Mr. MJS Rupal for the respondent University.
+W.~.(C) No. 4555/2011 & CM No. 9258/2011
By this petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to direct the respondent University to grant 27o/o reservation to the OBC category candidates. The petitioner also seeks directions to direct the respondent to quash the clause 2.1.6 of the Prospectus of the Delhi University, whereby they have fixed a certain number of seats for the OBC category ignoring
.. '
- the criteria of 27% ·reservation to the said category as per law.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
By this petition the petitioner has raised a grievance that the respondent University of Delhi has not implemented the policy of the Government to grant
2011:DHC:17648 reservation of 27o/o seats for OBC category for which three years time phase was granted by the Government commencing from the year 2008-2009. It is also the stand of the petitioner that for the implementation of the said Government policy, the Government has already released the necessary funds for the infrastructure etc. The petitioner has also tak~n a stand that some of the universities have already implemented the said Government policy and non implementation of the said policy by the respondent
University of Delhi is against the fundamental right of all those individuals who belong to the OBC category. It is also the case of the petitioner that if 27% reservation to the OBC category is given by the respondent university then the petitioner who has secured 105 rank in the OBC category will have fair chances of his admission.
During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner has also apprised this court that the petitioner has already made a representation with the respondent University to implement the said Government policy of granting 27% reservation to the OBC candidates.
11!1 !II
Mr. Rupal counsel for respondent Delhi University appears on advance notice.
Let the present petition filed by the petitioner be also treated as representation by the respondent University.
The respondent University shall take a decision on the said representation of the petitioner after convening a meeting of
<' all the concerned Heads of the Colleges. The representative of the respondent no.2 shall also remain present in such a meeting to be convened by the University. The decision shall be taken by the respondent University within a period of three months from the date of this order.
With the above directions, the present petition stands disposed of .
July 04, 2011 mg
Let the present petition filed by the petitioner be also treated as representation by the respondent University.
The respondent University shall take a decision on the said representation of the petitioner after convening a meeting of
<' all the concerned Heads of the Colleges. The representative of the respondent no.2 shall also remain present in such a meeting to be convened by the University. The decision shall be taken by the respondent University within a period of three months from the date of this order.
With the above directions, the present petition stands disposed of .
July 04, 2011 mg
JUDGMENT