University of Delhi v. Adil Sajeer Ansari

Digitaaly

38. The Court observed that a candidate placed in this situation, particularly one seeking admission in a professional course, each year is very precious. Relying upon Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, the Court held that for a deserving candidate, the primary relief is restitutionary:-

39. The Court thereafter concluded that, in exceptional cases, admission may be granted to a meritorious candidate even one month after the cut-off date for medical admissions (30th September) has passed. Relevant for the purposes of the present case are the conclusions recorded in paragraph 33 (iii) and (iv) which are as follows:

40. In so holding, the Court affirmed the decision of a smaller bench in Asha vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences & Ors. (2012) 7 SCC 389 and overruled a contrary decision in Chandigarh Administration & Anr. vs. Jasmine Kaur & Ors. (2014) 10 SCC 521. Although the judgment in S. Krishna Sradha (supra) is expressly confined to MBBS courses, the principles laid down by the Court provide valuable guidance.

41. The additional affidavit filed by the University dated 23.02.2021 in the present case clearly indicates that grant of admission to the petitioner at this stage would not be consonant with the requirement of a professional course like the MBA. Mr. Bhalaik during the course of arguments has conceded that the petitioner would be agreeable to admission for the course in question in the next academic year i.e. 2021-22. Mr. Rupal has also stated upon instructions that the admissions process for the year 2021-22 is in progress but students have not yet been granted admission. This is one of the alternatives contemplated by the Court in S. Krishna Sradha also.

42. Two other authorities also follow the same course: Digitaaly (a) Following the judgment in S. Krishna Sradha, the Supreme Court in National Medical Commission vs. Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi & Ors. 2020 SCC OnLine SC 992 [Civil Appeal No. 3940/2020, decided on 07.12.2020] applied the same guidelines for admission to post-graduate medical courses. The Court [in paragraph 9 of the said judgment] disagreed with the directions of the High Court to create an additional seat for the petitioner in the year under consideration, but granted her admission in the management quota of the concerned college for the next academic year. The petitioner was also granted compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for the loss of one academic year. (b)In Sneha Vats vs. University of Delhi & Ors. 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11199 [W.P. (C) 7854/2019, decided on 18.11.2019], the petitioner sought admission to the MBBS Course in University of Delhi in the CW category [Children/Widows of Officer and Men of the Armed Forces including Para-Military Personnel]. A Coordinate Bench of this Court relied upon the judgment in Asha and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner in the next academic session however, leaving the question of compensation open.

43. Having regard to the aforesaid precedents and the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the appropriate course would be to direct the University to admit the petitioner in the MBA (International Business) Programme in the year 2021-22. As held hereinabove, the mistake made by the petitioner was condonable by the University, particularly in view of the fact that he had followed up the matter with due diligence and rectified the mistake before the University had commenced processing the admissions and before any thirdparty rights had intervened. He also approached this Court with alacrity. However, the passage of time makes it difficult to require the University to grant him admission for the year 2020-21. Having regard to the fact that he did admittedly commit a typographical error, which led to the impugned Digitaaly decision of the University, I do not also consider it a fit case for grant of compensation to the petitioner for the year lost. Conclusion

44. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is disposed of by setting aside the decision of the Sub-Committee dated 07.08.2020 and directing the University to grant admission to the petitioner for the concerned course for the academic year 2021-22. Pending applications are also disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.”

13. Learned Counsel for the University has vehemently argued before this Court that the issue involved in the present case was in respect of admission for the academic year 2021 and, thereafter, the University has granted admissions in the academic year 2021-22 and 2022-23 and at this juncture, the question of grant of admission to the Respondent Student in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, specially when the writ petitioner/ respondent herein was at fault in submitting the documents in time, does not arise.

14. He has further argued before this Court that the learned Single Judge has erred in law and on facts in disagreeing with the specific instructions issued by the Appellant University in respect of submission of documents.

15. He has further argued that the executive instructions issued by the University were binding upon all the students specified for a particular course and no such mandamus could have been issued in the manner and method it has been done contrary to the instructions issued by the University on the subject. Digitaaly

16. Learned counsel has placed heavy reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh & Anr., (2008) 5 SCC 550. He further places reliance on a judgment in the case of Divya Bansal v. University of Delhi through its Registrar, W.P.(C) No. 9111/2020, decided on 23.11.2020, Ujjawal Tripathi v. Director General National Testing Agency, (2019) SCC Online Del 8702 and his contention is that in the light of the aforesaid judgment, by no stretch of imagination, the Writ Petition could have been allowed as it was a mistake on the part of the student himself in not submitting the requisite documents in time.

17. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment delivered in the case of Pallavi Sharma v. College of Vocational Studies, (2015) 221 DLT 738. Learned counsel for the University has vehemently argued before this Court that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the question of granting any relief to the Writ Petitioner/ Respondent student does not arise. The student himself was at fault and the mistake was admitted by him stating categorically that he has not uploaded/ submitted the documents in time and did commit a mistake in sending the documents on a wrong email address and, therefore, the question of granting him admission after 2 years does not arise.

18. Learned counsel has vehemently argued before this Court that the case of the Respondent student was not an isolated case. There were 5 students who were denied admission in respect of the same course out of which 4 students did not submit their documents before the deadline fixed by the University and one of them sent his documents on a wrong email Digitaaly address like the Writ Petitioner/ Respondent and, therefore, the Sub- Committee was justified in rejecting the representation of the Respondent and the same was done in all the other identical cases and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has erred in law and on facts in issuing a mandamus to the University.

19. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The matter is being disposed of with the consent of the parties at the admission stage itself.

20. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the Respondent applied for admission to MBA Programme (International Business) in the Department of Commerce, Faculty of Commerce and Business, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi for the academic year 2020-21 and he was provisionally selected in the OBC Category in the 8th Admission List. The Respondent student was informed by an email dated 02.08.2020 to submit the documents from 02.08.2020 to 04.08.2020 between 10AM to 4PM. It is an undisputed fact that the Respondent on 04.08.2020 submitted the documents on a wrong email address and he was informed by the University that the University has not received the documents. The Respondent, on 04.08.2020 at 09:19 PM, apologizing his mistake, again sent an email to the University and it is an undisputed fact that the Respondent was not provided with the payment link as he did not submit the documents in time and the University on 05.08.2020 at 02:19 PM informed the Respondent that his case cannot he considered because of the deadline of submission of documents. Digitaaly

21. The present case is not a case where the university was at fault. The time line was prescribed for submitting the documents and the same was not complied with by the Respondent Student. The learned Single Judge, in the year 2022 has directed the University to grant admission to the Respondent in respect of MBA Programme for the academic year 2021-22 even though the Court has arrived at a conclusion that the mistake was on the part of the Respondent. In the matter of admissions such a mistake cannot be held to be condonable mistake especially when 5 such identically placed students were denied admission by the University. The Respondent’s case in isolation cannot be looked into as has been done by the learned Single Judge and the University has to take a uniform decision in respect of all the cases.

22. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Meenakhi and Others v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Others, LPA 370/2020, decided on 05.04.2021 was dealing with a controversy in the matter of grant of admission in M.Sc and Ph.D courses and the Division Bench in paragraphs 15 to 18 in the aforesaid case has held as under:

23. The Division Bench in the aforesaid case has held that there has to be finality to admissions and the admission process has to be concluded keeping in view the prospectus published for such admissions. In the Digitaaly present case, as per the terms and conditions of the prospectus and the time schedule, the Respondent did not submit the documents as required for the purpose of admission and, at this stage, the question of granting admission to the Respondent, especially when admissions have been done in respect of academic year 2022-23, does not arise.

24. The learned Single Judge has also arrived at a conclusion that the minutes on record of the Committee which has rejected the case of the Respondent do not reveal any application of mind and a blanket decision was taken by the committee. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Committee was justified in taking a uniform decision in all such cases where documents were not submitted in time and, in fact, the Committee was justified in taking a uniform decision in the present matter as well.

25. This Court has also carefully gone through the judgment delivered in the case of S. Krishna Sradha vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.,2019 SCC OnLine SC 1609 [Civil Appeal No. 1081/2017, decided on 13.12.2019] and it was a case of grant of admission after the cut off date fixed for admission i..e 30th September in case of a medical student. Paragraph 33 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: “33. xxxx xxxx xxxx

(iii) 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 Digitaaly 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.

(iv) 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. ”

26. In the present case, no such contingency is involved. The only issue involved is whether the Respondent student was wrongfully denied admission and the mistake, if any, can be attributed to the University or not. In the concerned opinion of this Court, the mistake, if any, lapse, if any, was on the part of the Respondent student who did not upload his documents in time before the deadline fixed by the University and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside and is, accordingly set aside. Not only this, the admission in respect of Respondent student was for the academic year 2021-22 and now the university has granted admissions in respect of the academic year 2022-23 and, at this juncture, especially when the mistake was on the part of the student, the question of granting him admission does not arise. Resultantly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside and decision of the University in not granting him the admission in MBA (International Digitaaly Business) Programme, Department of Commerce, Faculty of Commerce and Business for the academic year 2020-21 is upheld. (SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)

CHIEF JUSTICE (SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD)