Sonam Rawal v. University of Delhi

(i) the correct eligibility criteria was mentioned in the Bulletin of

Information 2022, which provides B.Sc. (Hons.) Botany from University of Delhi as the eligibility criterion for admission in M.Sc. Botany course under Merit Admission Category; (ii) the petitioner has not disclosed that the petitioner could not succeed in the Entrance Exam Category; (iii) different eligibility criteria for entrance exam admission category and merit admission category is being followed for last number of years which is borne out from the copies of Bulletin of Information of previous three years annexed with the counter affidavit; (iv) the petitioner is obliged to refer to the Bulletin of Information before filling the admission form and cannot take the excuse of inadvertent error in the admission form regarding the eligibility criteria for Merit Based Admission in M.Sc. Botany; (v) the petitioner could not challenge the eligibility criteria after having unsuccessfully participated in the admission process.

14. According to the Mr. Rupal, the admission process is now at the final stage with three admission lists already declared based on the eligibility criteria mentioned in the Bulletin of Information and in case the eligibility criteria for Merit Based Admission in M.Sc. Botany as mentioned in the Bulletin of Information is quashed, the entire admission process will be required to be done de novo, depriving the students of the course to which they have already been admitted based on the eligibility criteria given in Bulletin of Information. He further contends that the eligibility criteria mentioned in the Bulletin of Information has been prescribed based on the inputs of academic experts in the field. Elaborating further, he submits that Entrance Examination Based Admission Eligibility criteria is broad based as students from B.Sc. (Hons.) Biological Sciences are also eligible in addition to B.Sc. (Hons.) Botany. That apart, even the students from other universities are also eligible. Whereas for Merit Based Admission in M.Sc. Botany course, only the students who are graduate in B.Sc. (Hons.) Botany from University of Delhi are eligible. He thus, urged that the classification of admission criteria for M.Sc. Botany on merit and entrance exam basis, is based on intelligible differentia and has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

15. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the documents on record.

16. Undisputedly, the eligibility criteria for admission to M.Sc. Botany course under the Merit Admission Category, as mentioned in the Bulletin of Information 2022, is B.Sc. (Hons.) Botany from University of Delhi. Admittedly, the petitioner does not satisfy this criteria as she possesses the degree of B.Sc. (Hons.) Biological Science and not B.Sc. (Hons.) Botany. The petitioner was only eligible under the Entrance Exam Category. Indeed, the petitioner did apply under the Entrance Exam Category also. However, as mentioned in the rejoinder, she did not take the examination under the Entrance Exam Category as she was busy in preparing for another entrance exam.

17. It is also not in dispute that the eligibility criteria for admission to M.Sc. Botany under Merit Category as mentioned in the Bulletin of Information 2022 is at variance with the one mentioned in the PG Admission Form available on the website. As noted above, the eligibility criteria under the Merit Category as mentioned in the Bulletin of Information is B.Sc. (Hons.) Botany from University of Delhi whereas the one stated in the Admission Form also includes B.Sc. (Hons.) Biological Science from University of Delhi apart from B.Sc. (Hons.) Botany.

18. In the backdrop of aforesaid factual matrix, the fundamental question which falls for consideration in the present petition is that which eligibility criteria will prevail, whether the one mentioned in the Bulletin of Information or the one given in the Admission Form.

19. The answer is not far to seek as the issue in regard to the binding character of the Bulletin of Information/prospectus is no more res integra. In Varun Kumar Aggarwal vs. Union of India & Ors., 179 (2011) DLT 24, after noticing various precedents, the Division Bench of this court held that the prospectus is binding on the candidates as well as on the State including the machinery appointed by it for identifying the candidates for selection and admission. The relevant paras‟ of the decision reads as under:-

15. In Indu Gupta v. Director Sports, Punjab, AIR 1999 P&H 319 (FB), the Full Bench in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 has expressed thus:

11. The cumulative effect of the above well enunciated principles of law, is that the terms and conditions of the brochure where they used preemptory language cannot be held to be merely declaratory. They have to be and must necessarily to be treated as mandatory. Their compliance would be essential otherwise the basic principle of fairness in such highly competitive entrance examinations would stand frustrated. Vesting of discretion in an individual in such matters, to waive or dilute the stipulated conditions of the brochure would per se introduce the element of discrimination, arbitrariness and unfairness. Such unrestricted discretion in contravention to the terms of the brochure would decimate the very intent behind the terms and conditions of the brochure, more particularly, where the cut off date itself has been provided in the brochure. The brochure has the force of law. Submission of applications complete in all respects is a sine qua non to the valid acceptance and consideration of an application for allotment of seats in accordance with the terms prescribed in the brochure.

16. We have referred to the aforesaid decisions only to highlight that the conditions stipulated in the prospectus are guidelines for all concerned and everyone is required to follow the same in letter and spirit and not act in transgression."…. (emphasis supplied)

20. Again, a Coordinate Bench in Hritik Rana vs. Delhi Sports Council and Ors., (2020) SCC OnLine DEL 1822, emphasized on the binding character of the terms of brochure as well as on the principle of estoppel that a candidate cannot after having unsuccessfully participated in the selection process turn around and challenge the terms of criteria of the admission brochure. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment reads as under:-

13. Similarly, in Karnataka SRTC v. Ashrafulla Khan [(2002) 2 SCC 560: AIR 2002 SC 629], this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 572-73, para 27) “27. … The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is required to enforce rule of law and not pass order or direction which is contrary to what has been injuncted by law.” Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel [(2010) 4 SCC 393: (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 162: AIR 2010 SC 1099].”

22. In Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh vs. Sanjay Gulati: AIR 1983 SC 580, while emphasizing that the rules of admission must be adhered to by the authorities of educational institutions, the Supreme Court observed as under:- "5. We find that this situation has emboldened the erring authorities of educational institutions of various States to indulge in violating the norms of admission with impunity. They seem to feel that the courts will leave the admissions intact, even if the admissions are granted contrary to the rules and regulations. This is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. Laws are meant to be obeyed, not flouted……..”

23. Reverting to the facts of this case, the unrefuted position, as noted from the counter affidavit, is that the Bulletin of Information 2022 under the heading “Important Points” also emphasized that the Bulletin is binding on the candidates. The material part of the Bulletin of Information, 2022 as extracted from the counter affidavit, reads as under:- “…..BEFORE REGISTERING FOR CUET 2022, THE CANDIDATES ARE ADVISED TO CAREFULLY READ THE BULLETIN OF INFORMATION AND DELHI UNIVERSITY ACT, 1922 AND THE STATUTES, ORDINANCES, RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DELHI, AVAILABLE ON THE UNIVERSITY WEBSITE, WOULD BE BINDING ON THEM.”

24. Similarly, the Bulletin of Information 2022 also contains the following word of caution and disclaimer:- “……Candidates are responsible for regularly checking the website and admission portals of NTA and University of Delhi for updates related to CUET 2022 and admission related policies. Grievances resulting from not having consulted this Bulletin and the Website(s) will not be entertained.”

25. Even the relevant extract of the Bulletin of Information of previous three years, i.e., 2017-2018, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 [Annexure R-2 (Colly.)], which have been annexed by the respondent no.1/university with its counter affidavit, reveal that the same eligibility criteria, as mentioned in the Bulletin of Information 2022, has been consistently followed for admission to M.Sc. Botany course in the past, both for the Entrance Exam Category and the Merit Admission Category.

26. Incidentally, it is also not the case of the petitioner that the eligibility criteria for admission in M.Sc. Botany under the Merit Category, was not stipulated in the Bulletin of Information 2022 or she was not aware about the same. On the contrary, a specific reference has been made to the Eligibility Criteria extracted from the Bulletin of Information 2022 (Annexure P-3, page 27), in paragraph 2.[2] of the writ petition. Even during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in response to a query from the court, admitted that the petitioner was aware that the eligibility for admission to M.Sc. Botany has been provided in the Bulletin of Information 2022, where the criteria under the Merit Category has been mentioned as B.Sc. (Hons.) Botany. He, however, sought to invoke the principle of estoppel and legitimate expectation on the basis of the eligibility criteria as mentioned in the PG Admission Form.

27. In view of the legal and factual position as stated above, it is beyond any cavil that the eligibility criteria as mentioned in Bulletin of Information 2022 shall govern the admission to M.Sc. Botany course under the Merit Category. The petitioner cannot take advantage of, or refuge under, the inadvertent error that has crept in the Admission Form available on the website. Such a mistake on part of the respondent-university would not clothe the petitioner with any legal right. Surely, the doctrine of estoppel cannot be applied against public authorities when their mistaken advice or representation is found to be in breach of a Statute.[1] Obviously, this court cannot direct the respondent-university to commit breach of its Bulletin of Information.

28. It is settled legal position that the Bulletin of Information has the force of law and it is also trite that there is no estoppel against law. Therefore, the doctrine of „legitimate expectation‟ and „estoppel‟ cannot be pressed against the respondent-university when the mistake in the PG Admission Form is ex facie contrary to the eligibility criteria mentioned in the Bulletin of Information.

29. The challenge to the eligibility criteria premised on the ground of discrimination, as noted above, was not seriously pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and rightly so because the petitioner was all along aware that the eligibility criteria of M.Sc. Botany, both under the Entrance Exam Category as well as the Merit Category, has been given in the Bulletin of Information but the petitioner did not challenge the same before participating in the admission process. The petitioner did not even seek clarification from the respondent university as to which eligibility criteria, the one given in the Bulletin of Information or that mentioned in the PG Admission Form, will apply. Now after having unsuccessfully participated in the selection process, the petitioner cannot turn around and challenge the criteria of admission given in the Bulletin of Information.

30. The law in this regard is far too well settled to require articulation or reiteration. However, illustratively, it may be apt to refer to the decision of

1 Hira Tikkoo v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (2004) 6 SCC 765 the Supreme Court in Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal: (2008) 4 SCC 171, wherein it was held that if a candidate, despite having knowledge of the educational qualification as clearly indicated in the advertisement, participates in the selection process and takes a chance, on failing in the process such candidate cannot turn around and assail the selection criteria on the ground that that the requisite qualifications were contrary to the Rules. The following passages from the said decision could advantageously be referred to:-

7. It is not disputed that the respondent-writ petitioners herein participated in the process of selection knowing fully well that the educational qualification was clearly indicated in the advertisement itself as BPE or graduate with diploma in Physical Education. Having unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection without any demur they are estopped from challenging the selection criterion inter alia that the advertisement and selection with regard to requisite educational qualifications were contrary to the Rules.

8. In Madan Lal v. State of J&K [(1995) 3 SCC 486: 1995 SCC (L&S) 712: (1995) 29 ATC 603] this Court pointed out that when the petitioners appeared at the oral interview conducted by the members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Therefore, only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed writ petitions. This Court further pointed out that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted.

9. In the present case, as already pointed out, the respondentwrit petitioners herein participated in the selection process without any demur; they are estopped from complaining that the selection process was not in accordance with the Rules. If they think that the advertisement and selection process were not in accordance with the Rules they could have challenged the advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection process. This has not been done.”

31. To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar: (2010) 12 SCC 576, wherein it was observed as under:-

32. Now turning to the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Karunesh Kumar (supra), it is noted that the said decision is on the point that qualification or eligibility cannot be changed in the middle of the selection process, but the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the rules of the game were not changed midway. In fact, like the previous three years, the same criterion was notified in the Bulletin of Information 2022. The said decision, therefore, does not advance the case of the petitioner.

33. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition and, accordingly, the same is dismissed.

34. However, before parting with this case, this court would like to observe that the University of Delhi needs to take immediate corrective measures in identifying and removing all such material from its website which mentions the eligibility criteria for admission to any course, contrary to the one stipulated in the Bulletin of Information or the statutory Rules, Regulations and Ordinances of the University, for such contradictory and misleading criteria not only creates confusion in the minds of the candidates but also leads to unwarranted litigation.

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J. JANUARY 24, 2023