Mudit Sunda v. University of Delhi

1. The petitioner had filed this petition seeking directions to the respondent to grant his admission in the faculty of law, University of Delhi in academic session 2022-25 as per the fourth admission list released by the respondent-University. As per averments made by the petitioner, it is seen that the respondent-University declared the fourth merit list on 09.01.2023 where the name of the petitioner finds place.

2. As per the intimation served to the petitioner (P-1). The petitioner was called upon to apply for admission from 09.01.2023 up to 2:00 pm on 10.01.2023. After uploading the requisite information/documents, the faculty of law was to verify and approve the admission of a candidate who had applied under the fourth merit list latest by 5:30 pm on 10.01.2023. It is, thereafter that the candidates were to make the payment against their merit position till 11:59 pm on 10.01.2022.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner raises a grievance with respect to the manner in which the time was allocated by the respondent-University against each merit list. He, firstly, stated that since he could not check his email on 09.01.2023 and up to 2:00 pm on 10.01.2023, therefore, he could not complete the formalities up to 02:00 pm on 10.01.2023. Secondly, he states that even on 10.01.2023 after the admission time had expired he physically went to the respondent-University and requested for acceptance of his physical documentation but the same was denied and on the next date also he personally visited the respondent- University and persuaded the respondent- University to accept his formalities. The petitioner states that on 12.01.2023 he wrote an email to the concerned authority for sympathetic consideration. In addition to the submission with respect to completing the formalities with respect to his admission process, the learned counsel also pointed out that against each merit list different time schedule is prescribed by the respondent-University.

4. According to him, against some merit list the time was provided for two days whereas, in last merit list, the time was provided only up to 45 minutes or 60 minutes to upload the documents. He, therefore, states that such an arbitrary process for admission should not be countenanced by this court and under the facts and circumstances of the present case when the name of the petitioner finds place in the merit list he should have been be granted time by the respondent-University. He, therefore, states that merely for the reason that the petitioner could not check his email before 2:00 pm on 10.01.2023 his merit position should not be ignored.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner places reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prince Jaiveer v. Union of India in the Civil appeal No. 6983/2021 dated 22.11.2021 and S Krishan Shadha v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1] and the decision of this court in the case of Sarthak Karla and University of Delhi 2, Adi Sajiv Ansari v. University of Delhi and Anr.3, and the interim order passed by this court in W.P.(C) 1083/2023.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-University opposes the submission and he states that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. According to the respondent-University, as per information bulletin for admission to the post-graduate programme (2022-2023), the candidates are responsible for regularly checking the website at the admission portals of NTA and the University of Delhi for updates and admission-related policies. According to him, grievances resulting from not having consulted the bulletin and the website/s are not to be entertained. He has taken this court through various clauses of the information bulletin and admission guidelines. According to him, as per clause 13 of the “Instructions/Guidelines for Admission for LL.B. and LL.M. Course,” it was made clear that if any candidate whose name is declared in the merit list to be eligible for admission, if fails to complete the admission formalities within the specified period, then such candidate shall forfeit his/her claim to the concerned seat.

7. He states that declaration of forth merit list was on the basis of the last candidate who joined in pursuance to the earlier merit list. If any candidate out of the third merit list is allowed to be adjusted in forth merit list or if a candidate whose name finds place in forth merit list is allowed to be adjusted in fifth merit list, the entire process will become never ending. He explains that the counselling process has to come to an end and the same has to be conducted with utmost fairness and transparency and, therefore, the specific slots have been allotted for completion of the necessary formalities. With respect to the contention raised by the petitioner regarding decreasing of the time against each merit list, he explains that in the first merit list for Law Centre-I, number of candidates were 963 in all categories, in the second merit list the number of candidates were 262 in all categories and in the third merit list, the number of candidates were 357 in all categories. Since the respondent-University has to meet deadline for admission and also to ensure that no seat should go waste, the time span has to be accordingly adjusted and the same is bound to be in decreasing manner. While taking this court through the relevant table extracted by the respondent-University in paragraph No.22 of the reply, it has been shown that against each merit list, depending upon the number of candidates, sufficient time has been given to the students to complete the online formalities for uploading the documents etc. He, therefore, submits that no interference is called for since the petitioner himself has missed the opportunity to complete the formalities and the petitioner should not blame any other person for his own negligence. He also states that the petitioner has not challenged any of the guidelines or information bulletins etc.

8. In rejoinder submission, learned counsel while referring to various averments made in the rejoinder states that in the second last cut off date even for two students, the time for completing the formalities given was 45 minutes. According to him, the so-called decreasing pattern does not have any legal backing. The same is arbitrary and, therefore, requires interference by this court.

9. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

10. It is seen from Annexure-P[1] that the petitioner was to complete the admission formalities by 2:00 pm on 10.01.2023. Admittedly, the petitioner has not completed the formalities up to 2:00 pm on 10.01.2023. The petitioner’s case is that he could not check the e-mail which was sent by the respondent-University and, therefore, he should be allowed to complete the formalities even after 2:00 pm on 10.01.2023. The information bulletin specifically contains the stipulation that the candidates who apply for the admission with respect to the concerned courses are to regularly check their mail and to remain updated. It further specifically states that no grievance with respect to non-checking of mail would be entertained. The counselling process has a certain sanctity that needs to be maintained. The same has to take place strictly in accordance with the conditions mentioned in institutions Booklet. Any intervention or any tinkering into the counselling process may lead to a cascading effect and hamper the whole counselling process.

11. The respondent-University which is expert in the field of academic matters has evolved a policy which admittedly is not under challenge in the instant petition. It is incumbent upon all concerned to scrupulously follow the terms and conditions mentioned therein. In the instant case, since the petitioner himself has failed to apply by 2:00 pm on 10.01.2023, therefore, this court cannot find any fault in the approach of the respondent-University to entertain his grievance after 2:00 pm on 10.01.2023. It is a case where the petitioner has to blame himself for the situation arrived at. He should have been vigilant in keeping track of his mail, when instructions so require. No exception can be created without any justifiable reason.

12. So far as the decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the case Prince Jaiveer (supra) is concerned, the same relates to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The same would not have any application on the facts of the present case. Another decision in the case of Sarthak Karla (supra) relates to certain glitch in the website, which resulted in non-completion of the formalities. The decision in the case of Adi Sajiv Ansari (supra) relates to sending e-mail on incorrect e-mail address and therefore, in all these cases, the facts and situations are different and, therefore, no parity can be claimed by the petitioner therefrom. In the case of S Krishan Shadha (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme court found that the same was one of the rarest of the rare case and, therefore, exceptional relief for granting admission even after the cut off date was considered. In the present case the petitioner is not able to make out a case for admission as the respondent-University has been found to have denied the admission on the ground that he did not apply before 2:00 pm on 10.01.2023. The reason for denying the admission by the respondent- University cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal.

13. In view thereto, this court does not find any substance in the instant petition; the same is, therefore, dismissed.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J FEBRUARY 22, 2023 Priya