Alkeshwari Negi v. University of Delhi & Anr.

1. The petitioner assails the decision of the respondent No. 1- 2021:DHC:3893 Univeristy of Delhi [“the University”] to the effect that she is ineligible for allotment of a seat in the M.A. Geography course.

2. The petitioner is a graduate of Himachal Pradesh University. She completed her undergraduate studies in the Choice Based Credit System [“CBCS”] and obtained a B.Sc. (Hons.) degree with a major in Chemistry and minors in Mathematics and Geography. The University released a Bulletin of Information [“the Bulletin”] for admissions to postgraduate courses in July, 2021, pursuant to which the petitioner applied for admission to the M.A. Geography course in the Scheduled Tribe [“ST”] category. She participated in the entrance examination on 30.09.2021, and the result of the examination was declared on 10.11.2021. The first merit list was issued on 16.11.2021, wherein she secured second place in the ST category. However, the University refused to admit her, pursuant to which she made various representations, which have been rejected.

3. It appears from the documents placed on record that the rejection was on account of the fact that the eligibility criteria mentioned in the Bulletin require a candidate to have a minimum of 24 credits in Geography with at least four courses of six credits each, whereas the petitioner’s qualifying degree did not include any course of six credits. The petitioner does appear to have 24 credits in Geography, but those were earned by taking six courses of only four credits each.

4. Mr. Shubham Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, draws my attention to a document published by the respondent No. 2-University Grants Commission [“UGC”] entitled “Minimum Course Curriculum for Undergraduate Courses under Choice Based Credit System” [“the Minimum Course Curriculum”]. He points out that while introducing the CBCS for undergraduate courses, the UGC provided as follows:- “11. Wherever a University requires that an applicant for a particular M.A./M.Sc. /Technical/Professional course should have studied a specific discipline at the undergraduate level, it is suggested that obtaining 24 credits in the concerned discipline at the undergraduate level may be deemed sufficient to satisfy such a requirement for admission to the M.A./M.Sc./Technical/Professional course.”1 “15. The new scheme of UG courses should be given due consideration while framing the admission eligibility requirement for PG/ Technical courses in Indian Universities/Institutions to ensure that students following inter and multi-disciplinary format under CBCS are not at a disadvantage. It is suggested that wherever required, obtaining 24 credits in particular discipline may be considered as the minimum eligibility, for admission in the concerned discipline, for entry to PG/Technical courses in Indian Universities/Institutions.”2

5. Mr. Jain’s submission is that the UGC has not specified any particular combination of credits and courses which must be taken into account to qualify for admission to postgraduate courses, and that the insistence of the University upon four courses of six credits each is, therefore, arbitrary and capricious. Extracted from page 153 of the writ petition; emphasis supplied. Extracted from page 162 of the writ petition; emphasis supplied.

6. Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, learned Standing Counsel for the University, appearing on advance notice, takes a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delay. He submits that the petitioner has participated in the application process pursuant to the Bulletin. She was fully aware of the eligibility criterion, but did not challenge the same at any stage and has only come to the Court after the declaration of the first and second admission lists. Mr. Rupal further submits that fixation of eligibility criteria is a matter of academic policy which the writ court ought not to interfere with.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. The petitioner applied pursuant to the Bulletin, which clearly contains the following stipulation:- Merit and Entrance Based Eligibility in Entrance Category Category Id Course Requirements Marks Requirements 1 B.A (Hons.)/B.Sc. (Hons.) in geography from University of Delhi or any other University recognised by University of Delhi 55% or above marks in aggregate or an equivalent grade 2 B.A./B.Sc./B.Ed. with Geography or its equivalent University of Delhi or any other University recognised by University of Delhi. The candidate should have done at least four courses of six credit each in Geography total minimum 24 credits.[3] 55% or above in Geography papers and 50% or above in aggregate or an equivalent grade

8. The petitioner, admittedly, did not possess B.Sc. (Hons.) degree Emphasis supplied. in Geography and, therefore, falls within Category Id 2. The stipulation that candidates should have done at least four courses of six credits each [with a minimum total of 24 credits] in Geography is expressly stated in the Bulletin, and is also stated in the application form signed and submitted by the petitioner.

9. The petitioner’s failure to challenge these provisions at the appropriate time comes in her way. Several candidates in a similar position as the petitioner’s may have chosen not to apply in view of the eligibility criteria or may have been rejected as a consequence thereof. It is well settled that candidates who participate in a selection process being fully aware of the rules governing the same are generally disentitled from challenging the said process at a belated stage. In Ramesh Chandra Shah and Others vs. Anil Joshi and Others[4], the Supreme Court held as follows:

10. The aforesaid position has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Bihar[6] as well as by the Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Ojasvini Agrawal vs. Union of India and Others[7].

11. In any event, the petitioner’s arguments on merits also do not appeal to me. The University has laid down the particular manner in which 24 credits should be earned for a candidate to be admitted to postgraduate courses. Whether six courses of four credits each are sufficient, or four courses of six credits should be required, is a matter of policy. The writ court is generally loathe to interfere with eligibility criteria laid down by academic experts, unless they are shown to be manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable.

12. In Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh[8], the Supreme Court has held as follows: