Ravindra Bishnoi v. National Testing Agency and Another

(i) Hindi;

(ii) English;

(iii) Political Science;

(iv) Geography; and

(v) English Literature.

12. The Petitioner opted for two languages i.e. English and Hindi from Section IA from List A as against the requirement to opt for only one as per Program Specific Eligibility for “B.A. (Hons.) Geography”. The petitioner further opted for three subjects viz., Geography / Geology, History and Political Science from List B[1], as against the requirement of opting for two subjects from List B[1] and one subject from List B[2] or all three subjects from List B[1].

13. On the basis of the marks scored by the Petitioner in CUET (UG)-2022, the Petitioner was allotted a seat in “B.A. (Hons.) Geography” at Kirori Mal College in Common Seat Allocation System (CSAS) Round-I, on 19.10.2022. The said seat allocation was accepted by the Petitioner on 20.10.2022, but on the very next day i.e. on 21.10.2022 the said allocation was cancelled [Annexure P-8] on the ground of “non-fulfilment of subject-mapping criteria”.

14. In the above background, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following prayer:- (a) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the cancellation of admission by the Respondent No. 2 alloted to the petitioner in vide order 53260/KMC/17/1/CSAS dated 21.10.2022 in BA (Hons) Geography course in Kirori Mal College. (b) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No. 2 to grant admission to the petitioner in BA (Hons) Geography course in Kirori Mal College for the academic year 2022-2023.

15. The record reveals that the writ petition was first filed by the Petitioner on 27.11.2022 and after removal of objections raised by the Registry, the same was re-filed and registered on 29.11.2022, and listed for hearing for the first time on 30.11.2022, when notice was issued to the Respondents. The University of Delhi filed a short counter affidavit taking a stand that the Petitioner has opted to appear in History paper in CUET (UG)-2022 which was not studied by him in Class XII, whereas in terms of the Bulletin of Information, a candidate is required to appear only in those papers in CUET which were studied at Class XII. The relevant paragraphs from the short counter affidavit spelling out the stand of the university, reads as under:

5. The Petitioner has opted to appear in History paper which was not studied by him in 12th class board. The University of Delhi had made it very clear in its Bulletin of Information that a candidate is required to appear only in those papers in CUET which were studied in 12th Class board. Therefore the Petitioner is not eligible to apply for any course in Honours degree.

6. The admission process has already concluded and the present Writ Petition itself has become infructuous with elapse of time.

7. Be that as it may be the Petitioner even otherwise is not eligible to seek admission in University of Delhi as the Petitioner does not meet the mandatory eligibility criteria for Hons Course in any subject. The Petitioner in the 12th class board has appeared in Political Science, Geography and three language papers. The Rules of NTA had clarified that “Candidates must carefully refer to the eligibility requirements of various Central Universities in this regard”. The Bulletin of Information of University of Delhi had made it very clear that “Candidate must appear in CUET in only those subjects in which s(he) has passed Class XII”.

8. The Petitioner is seeking admission in BA (Hons) Geography but the subjects in which the Petitioners has taken CUET do not match to the subjects in which he has appeared in Class XII therefore the Petitioner is not eligible for BA Hons Courses.

16. Mr. A. Velan, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that since the subject English Literature was not mentioned in the list of 27 Domain Specific Subjects, therefore, the Petitioner has opted for History as one of the subjects for CUET examination which was closely related to the subject of English Literature. To add emphasis to his argument, the learned counsel has invited the attention of the Court to Clause 4 under the heading of ‘Important Points’ spelt out in the Bulletin of Information of the University. Further, drawing the attention of the Court to the Program Specific Eligibility criteria for B.A. (Hons.) Geography, he submits that the Petitioner has opted for two languages from List A i.e. English and Hindi and likewise, opted for three subjects i.e. Geography, History and Political Science, from List B[1]. It was thus, contended that the Petitioner was fulfilling the Common Minimum Eligibility, as well as, the Program Specific Eligibility as prescribed in the Bulletin of Information by the University of Delhi. He, therefore, urged that cancellation of the seat allotted to the petitioner is bad in law.

17. Per contra, Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 / University of Delhi submits that the Bulletin of Information of University of Delhi clearly spells out that the candidate must appear in CUET in only those subjects in which he has passed Class XII. Elaborating further on his submission, Mr. Rupal states that the Petitioner has opted to appear in History paper in CUET Examination which was not a subject studied by him in Class XII. He, therefore, submits that the Petitioner is not eligible to apply for any course in (Hons.) Degree. He further contends that the admission process has also concluded, therefore, the writ petition itself has become infructuous with lapse of time. He thus, prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.

18. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the documents on record.

19. Undoubtedly, clause 3 of the ‘Important Points’ stipulates that a candidate must appear in CUET in only those subjects in which he has passed in Class XII, but at the same time clause 4 thereof carves an exception and provides that in case the subject studied at Class XII is not mentioned in the CUET (i.e. in the list of Domain Specific Subjects), the candidate must appear in the subject, that is similar / closely related to the subject he has studied at Class XII.

20. Beside other subjects, the Petitioner has studied ‘English Literature’ in Class XII, which is not mentioned in the list of 27 Domain Specific Subjects notified for CUET, accordingly, the Petitioner opted for ‘History’ from the said list in lieu of ‘English Literature’ on the premise that ‘History’ is closely related to ‘English Literature’.

21. The stand of the University to the effect that the Petitioner has opted to appear in the History paper which was not studied by him in Class XII, therefore, the Petitioner is not eligible for BA Hons. Courses, is a stand taken only in terms of clause 3 of the ‘Important Points’. Intriguingly, the University has not clarified its stand in terms of clause 4 of the ‘Important Points’. The short counter affidavit filed by the University is conspicuously silent as to whether the subject ‘English Literature’ studied by the Petitioner at Class XII is closely related to the subject ‘History’ in which the Petitioner opted to appear.

22. On the contrary, the specific case of the Petitioner in the writ petition is that from the list of 27 Domain Specific Subjects he could find only the subject ‘History’ which is nearest or closely related to ‘English Literature’. This position has not even been disputed by the University in its short counter affidavit.

23. It has repeatedly been held by the Courts that matters of education must be left to the educationists[1]. It is not for this Court to enter into an area of experts and decide whether the subject ‘History’ is closely related to ‘English’. However, regard being had to the fact that the University did not take any stand in that behalf and has maintained stoic silence despite a specific assertion by the Petitioner in his petition and further, there being discretion available to the Petitioner under the Bulletin of Information to choose any subject which was closely related to ‘English Literature’, no fault can be found in the Petitioner opting for ‘History’ in lieu of the subject of ‘English Literature’ studied by him in Class XII.

24. In the circumstances, the rationale, premised on which the cancellation of the seat allotted to the Petitioner is sought to be sustained by the University, is erroneous and accordingly, the University’s decision to cancel the seat allotted to the petitioner is liable to be set aside, and it is so ordered.

25. Mr. A. Velan, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has, however, not joined issue with Mr. Ruppal’s contention that the admission process has already concluded. To overcome this impediment the Petitioner relies upon the decision of S. Krishna Sradha Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2020) 17 SCC 465, and contends that even after the expiry of the cut-off date of admission, the Court can direct for admission in the same year by increasing the seats, if the student is meritorious and when there is no fault on part of the student. (2021) 12 SCC 390: Anand Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

26. At this juncture it is apt to advert to some of the dates. The seat allotted to the Petitioner was admittedly cancelled on 21.10.2022 but the writ petition was filed only on 27.11.2022, i.e., one month seven days after cancellation of the seat. After the Petitioner cleared the objections raised by the Registry, the writ petition was registered on 29.11.2022. It was first listed for hearing on 30.11.2022, when this Court issued notice to the Respondents. In the short counter affidavit filed by the Respondent University, which has been attested on 09.12.2022, the stand of the University is that the admission process has already concluded. This position has not been disputed by the Petitioner in its rejoinder. Possibly, by the time the writ petition was listed for hearing, the admission process had concluded.

27. This Court is conscious of the settled position of law that the time schedule for admission in educational institutions has to be adhered to.[2] In Meenakshi Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences,2021 SCC OnLine Del 2715, a Division of this Court held that there has to be a finality to admissions. In that case, the petitioners therein, who till the stipulated date had not cleared the qualifying examination but were likely to clear the qualifying examination by the stipulated date, were permitted to apply for admission in the M.Sc and Ph.D courses. The petitioners therein though secured a position in the merit which would have entitled them to admission, could not secure admission owing to having not cleared the qualifying examination by the stipulated date. In this factual backdrop the Court held as under:

28. In Bhim Shankar Thakur Vs. Delhi University and Anr. 2017 SCC Online Del, 7627, default was on part of the appellants in submitting the original degree on the date of counselling, and the Division Bench of this Court struck a somewhat different note. The Court dismissed the intra-court appeal, inter-alia, on the ground that the admissions for the concerned academic year were closed as per the university’s notice even before the date of filing of the writ petition. The relevant extract of the judgment reads as under:

12. We are also of the view that the plea of the appellants that even after the last date fixed for admissions, the appellants could have been allowed admission since the original documents are now ready cannot be accepted since it is mandatory for all the students to satisfy the minimum attendance prescribed by the University to qualify to appear for the examinations. At any rate, having regard to the fact that even by the date of filing of the writ petitions, the admissions for the Academic Year 2016-17 were closed as per the University's notice dated 22.09.2016, the learned Single Judge had rightly declined to entertain the writ petitions.

29. The question therefore arises is that to what relief the Petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand.

30. The decision of a three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in S. Krishna Sradha (supra) provides an answer to the above conundrum and lays down the guiding principles for moulding of the relief in the fact situation as obtaining in the present case.

31. The question of law posed in S. Krishna Sradha (supra) was akin to the one arising in the present case viz., whether a meritorious candidate can be granted admission after the deadline had passed. This question was referred to a larger Bench in view of conflict of opinion in two different pronouncements in Asha Vs. Pt. B. D. Sharma University of Health Sciences: (2012) 7 SCC 389 and Chandigarh Admn. Vs. Jasmine Kaur: (2014) 10 SCC 521. The question of law as formulated in paragraph 9 of the judgment reads as under:-

9. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length. The short but an important question of law posed for consideration of this Court is what relief a meritorious candidate is entitled to when it is found that a meritorious candidate is denied an admission arbitrarily and illegally by the authorities concerned and the fault is not attributable to the candidate at all and the candidate has pursued his/her legal rights expeditiously and without delay—whether in such a situation awarding compensation only can be said to be just and an adequate relief? The issue which arises for consideration is whether having fulfilled the aforesaid prerequisites, the Court can grant relief and order admission even after the cut-off date for admission i.e. 30th September is over and whether the Court can grant Admission beyond the intake either in the same year or in the next academic year?

32. The Court answered the reference in the following terms:-

13. In light of the discussion/observations made hereinabove, a meritorious candidate/student who has been denied an admission in MBBS course illegally or irrationally by the authorities for no fault of his/her and who has approached the Court in time and so as to see that such a meritorious candidate may not have to suffer for no fault of his/her, we answer the reference as under:

13.1. That in a case where candidate/student has approached the court at the earliest and without any delay and that the question is with respect to the admission in medical course all the efforts shall be made by the court concerned to dispose of the proceedings by giving priority and at the earliest.

13.2. Under exceptional circumstances, if the court finds that there is no fault attributable to the candidate and the candidate has pursued his/her legal right expeditiously without any delay and there is fault only on the part of the authorities and/or there is apparent breach of rules and regulations as well as related principles in the process of grant of admission which would violate the right of equality and equal treatment to the competing candidates and if the time schedule prescribed — 30th September, is over, to do the complete justice, the Court under exceptional circumstances and in rarest of rare cases direct the admission in the same year by directing to increase the seats, however, it should not be more than one or two seats and such admissions can be ordered within reasonable time i.e. within one month from 30th September i.e. cut-off date and under no circumstances, the Court shall order any admission in the same year beyond 30th October. However, it is observed that such relief can be granted only in exceptional circumstances and in the rarest of rare cases. In case of such an eventuality, the Court may also pass an order cancelling the admission given to a candidate who is at the bottom of the merit list of the category who, if the admission would have been given to a more meritorious candidate who has been denied admission illegally, would not have got the admission, if the Court deems it fit and proper, however, after giving an opportunity of hearing to a student whose admission is sought to be cancelled.

13.3. In case the Court is of the opinion that no relief of admission can be granted to such a candidate in the very academic year and wherever it finds that the action of the authorities has been arbitrary and in breach of the rules and regulations or the prospectus affecting the rights of the students and that a candidate is found to be meritorious and such candidate/student has approached the court at the earliest and without any delay, the court can mould the relief and direct the admission to be granted to such a candidate in the next academic year by issuing appropriate directions by directing to increase in the number of seats as may be considered appropriate in the case and in case of such an eventuality and if it is found that the management was at fault and wrongly denied the admission to the meritorious candidate, in that case, the Court may direct to reduce the number of seats in the management quota of that year, meaning thereby the student/students who was/were denied admission illegally to be accommodated in the next academic year out of the seats allotted in the management quota.

13.4. Grant of the compensation could be an additional remedy but not a substitute for restitutional remedies. Therefore, in an appropriate case the Court may award the compensation to such a meritorious candidate who for no fault of his/her has to lose one full academic year and who could not be granted any relief of admission in the same academic year.

13.5. It is clarified that the aforesaid directions pertain to admission in MBBS course only and we have not dealt with postgraduate medical course.

33. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in S. Krishna Sradha (supra) were though specifically confined to the admissions in MBBS course, but the guidelines stated therein could nevertheless be generally followed for other courses in moulding the relief in deserving cases, to meet the ends of justice.

34. Reverting to the facts of the case at hand, the delay on part of the Petitioner in approaching the Court led to the conclusion of admission process, possibly, even before the filing of the writ petition. Resultantly, the candidates who were lower in merit would have got admission in B.A. (Hons.) Geography and their admissions and consequent rights to continue after the conclusion of admission process, stands crystallized, therefore, such admitted candidates cannot be displaced. This being the position, no exceptional circumstances exist warranting issuance of directions to admit the Petitioner in the academic year 2022-23.

35. The delay on part of the Petitioner in approaching the court is however, not to an extent to non-suit the Petitioner completely on the ground of delay. This court cannot be unmindful of the fact that it is the University’s untenable action which foisted litigation on the petitioner. Therefore, regard being had to the fact that the seat allotted to the petitioner was arbitrarily and erroneously cancelled by the University in breach of the terms and conditions stipulated in the Bulletin of Information for no fault of the petitioner, and further considering that the petitioner is a deserving and meritorious student who made it to the merit list in the Round I of the counselling, the University of Delhi is directed to admit the petitioner in the next academic year i.e. 2023-24 for the Program of B.A. (Hons.) Geography in the same institute i.e. Kirori Mal College.

36. The petition is allowed in the above terms.

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J. MARCH 06, 2023