University of Delhi v. Praveen Sagar; University of Delhi v. Umang Bhardwaj

1. The appellant/University of Delhi has filed two intra-court appeals being aggrieved by the common judgment dated 08.11.2019 whereby, it has been directed to grant admission to Praveen Sagar [respondent in LPA 2019:DHC:6591-DB 729/2019 arising from W.P.(C) 10639/2019] and Umang Bhardwaj [respondent in LPA 734/2019 arising from W.P.(C) 10629/2019], in the LL.M. course upon fulfilment of requisite formalities with a further direction that the appellant/University will make suitable adjustments qua their attendance and if necessary, will hold extra classes for them.

2. There is no dispute to the fact that the respondents/petitioners had taken supplementary exams in respect of the papers in which they had failed and they had cleared the said exams after the cut-off date i.e. 31.08.2019. The contention of the appellant/University, both before the learned Single Judge as also before us is that the respondents/petitioners did not possess the basic qualification as on the cut-off date i.e. on 31.08.2019, since they had not passed their LL.B. course.

3. To put the facts in perspective, we may note that the results of the main LL.B. examination were declared on 31.07.2019. The entrance exam for the LL.M. course was held on 05.07.2019 and the results declared on 20.07.2019. The supplementary exams of LL.B., 6th Semester were no doubt held in the month of August, 2019, but the results were declared only in mid October, 2019, after the cut-off date.

4. Mr. Rupal, learned counsel for the appellant/University argued that the respondents/petitioners could not be admitted to the LL.M. course even provisionally as they lacked the basic eligibility qualification of an LL.B. Degree. On the directions of this court, Mr. Rupal had produced the background note of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Academic Council of the year 2010, leading to amendments to some clauses of Ordinance II, including Clause 3, which we have perused. He further pointed out that as is evident from the said background note, the University was examining the issue of fixing a cut-off date to process the admissions right from the year 2010 onwards. He submits that in any event, this was in keeping with the directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court in University of Delhi v. Varun Kapoor, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 2077, where it was also observed as follows:- “Further, we see no reason why the University should not scrutinize the cases of provisional admissions by the cutoff date and bring an end to the issue the day next.”

5. According to Mr. Rupal, learned counsel for the appellant/University, subsequent to the decision of the Division Bench in Varun Kapoor (Supra), the University had modified its Rules to fix the last date for the admission process as 31st August of the year in which the admissions were taking place, beyond which it was not permissible to finalize the admission. Provisional admissions not finalized by the said date, were also to stand automatically annulled vide Ordinance II, Clause 3, last proviso. Clause 3 of Ordinance II provides as under:- “3. Admissions shall be finalized by the Principals of Colleges and Deans of Faculties concerned, as the case may be, not later than such last date as may be prescribed by the Academic Council from time to time. Provided that the Vice Chancellor may, at his discretion, allow admission to any course after the prescribed date as aforesaid, for very exceptional reasons, such as late declaration of results or such other reasons considered satisfactory by the Vice Chancellor up to the dates thought reasonable by him in each case. Provided further that no admission will be made by a College prior to the date to be fixed by the Academic Council each year. Provided that all provisional admissions to the post graduate courses shall be finalized by the Standing Committees concerned not later than 31st August of the year in which admissions are sought. Provisional admissions not finalized by the aforesaid date shall automatically be annulled.” (Emphasis added) We may note that the said Clause of the Ordinance was not under challenge before the learned Single Judge.

6. Mr. Rupal, learned counsel for the appellant/University also submitted that the result of the supplementary exams could not be related back to the main examinations for purposes of admission to the LL.M. course since on the date of closure of the admissions on 31.08.2019, the respondents/petitioners were not eligible for admission having not acquired the basic qualifications of a degree in LL.B.. He placed reliance on the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this court in Ravi Yadav v. University of Delhi & Anr., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12187, to drive home the point that a person not having qualified in the qualifying examination within the prescribed period, was not entitled for admission to the LL.M. course and that the eligibility qualification of LL.B. was required to be obtained before the cut-off date fixed for admissions, in this case being 31.08.2019. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Council of Homeopathic System of Medicine, Punjab and Others v. Suchintan and Ors., 1993 Supp(3) SCC 99 and a judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Rupinder Singh and Ors. v. The Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training, Chandigarh and Others, MANU/PH/1039/2001 to bolster his contention that declaration of the result of supplementary exams cannot relate back to the date of the annual examination. Hence, it was submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the petitions of the respondents/petitioners and issuing directions to the appellant/University to take them in.

7. Per contra, Mr. Sahil Garg, learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners has relied heavily on the judgment of this Court in Varun Kapoor’s case (supra) to submit that in that case, observing that as the Delhi University had not clarified that the eligibility to appear in the entrance test must be acquired at the main examination and not the supplementary examination, an opportunity was given to the University to rectify the position by stipulating in the Bulletin of Information that eligibility de jure as also de facto had to be obtained by the cut-off date and those placed in compartment, would be treated as ineligible.

8. It was argued by learned counsel that despite such an opportunity being afforded to the appellant/University, they had failed to correct the anomaly and the learned Single Judge had rightly granted the benefit thereof to the respondents/petitioners. It was also argued that the very fact that the University had insisted on a candidate mandatorily attending the counselling even if they did not possess the basic/professional certificate, would show that their right to seek admission in subsequent lists was protected, as they were still treated eligible for such consideration for subsequent admission. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in Patel Kruti Dilipkumar and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., 2014 SCC OnLine Guj 2971 to contend that the doctrine of relation back applied to supplementary exams in the sense that once the results of the supplementary exams were declared, they related back to the date of declaration of the results of the regular examinations.

9. We have heard learned counsel at length, perused the relevant documents and the pleadings and given our thoughtful consideration to the cited judgments. To our mind, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners cannot come to their aid, as they are distinguishable on facts.

10. Since much emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners on the observations of the High Court in Varun Kapoor’s case (supra), it would be useful to refer to the facts of the said case in a little detail. In that case, Varun Kapoor was pursuing his graduate degree from a college affiliated to the Delhi University. He had cleared the entrance test and since the final result pertaining to the graduate degree course had not been declared, provisional admission was given to him. Unfortunately, Varun Kapoor failed in one subject and was permitted to take the supplementary exam, which he cleared successfully. However, by that time, the date by which he had to submit the requisite documents pertaining to his eligibility, namely, the final/provisional graduate degree issued by the University, alongwith the mark-sheet, evidencing that he had acquired the graduate degree with at least 50% marks, had lapsed. The University permitted him to continue attending classes and raised the issue somewhere in the month of December, by when the First Semester End Term examination was to be conducted. The University not only denied him the right to sit in the examination, but also threatened to cancel his admission, on which point of time, a writ petition was filed by the student praying that a declaration be granted that he was entitled to confirmation of his provisional admission and permitted to sit for the ensuing Semester End Term examination, as per the Rules. The learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition and the University took the matter in appeal. In this background, while dismissing the appeal of the University, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had observed as below: - “7. There is merit in the plea sought to be urged by learned counsel for the University that if a cut-off date is prescribed by which eligibility has to be secured, an eligibility secured at a later date would be inconsequential, but the argument ignores the fact that where law requires something deemed to have come into existence, one cannot boggle down the consequence thereof and whatever logically flows from the deemed existence of a thing having come into being, the same has to be treated as having come into being.

8. In our opinion the University not having clarified, as observed by the learned Single Judge, that eligibility must be acquired at the main examination and not the supplementary, the alternative reasoning of the learned Single Judge merits acceptance.

9. If the University has any issue on the second reasoning, it is easily capable of being rectified inasmuch as the University can, in future, clearly stipulate in the bulletin information that eligibility, de-jure as also de-facto, has to be obtained by the cut-off date and that those who are placed in compartment would be treated as ineligible. Further, we see no reason why the University should not scrutinize the cases of provisional admissions by the cut-off date and bring an end to the issue the day next.”

11. The first thing to be noticed here is that the co-ordinate Bench had also found merit in the plea of the University that if the cut-off date is prescribed by which eligibility had to be secured, subsequent procurement of such an eligibility would be of no consequence. Further, the court saw no reason as to why the University should not scrutinize the cases of provisional admissions by the cut-off date and bring an end to the said issue at the earliest. In the present case, the appellant/University has chosen to bring the entire admission process to an end by the cut-off date prescribed i.e. 31.08.2019. Thus, the University appears to have followed the directions of this court in Varun Kapoor’s case (supra). Moreover, the facts in that case were different from the present one. In the present case, provisional admission has also been declined to the respondents and the appellant/University had not approved of their admission on the admission portal for payment of fees and the status of their admission on the University’s website showed “cancelled due to non-payment of fees”. But in Varun Kapoor’s case (supra), not only was provisional admission given to the petitioner, he was also permitted to attend the classes. It was at the belated stage when he was to appear for the Semester End Term Examination that the University chose to threaten cancellation. This judgment can therefore, not enure to the benefit of the respondents herein.

12. The observations in Patel Kruti Dilipkumar’s case (supra) were made in the light of the fact that in the said case, there was no specific rule which debarred a student who had not cleared the regular examination, but had cleared the papers in the supplementary examinations from seeking admission in the post-graduate course. In the present case, Ordinance II and its proviso govern the admissions and the Schedule.

13. In Suraj Pratap Singh v. University of Delhi and Anr., 2016 SCC Online Del 5480, it was held that mere non-possession of the degree/provisional certificate at the time of counselling would not be of any consequence since Clause-II of the Notification therein required that all candidates including those whose results of the qualifying degree examination had not been declared, must attend the counselling, as per the Schedule. The candidate therein was unable to produce the qualifying degree (B.A.) from the concerned University since the result had not been declared and she had been provisionally admitted to the LL.B. course. This was not a case relating to supplementary exams.