University of Delhi v. Aaditya Wadhwa

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the applications are disposed of. LPA 37/2019, LPA 152/2019,LPA 153/2019& LPA 154/2019

3. These appeals by the Delhi University are directed against the impugned • tb judgement dated 18 December 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch ofWritPetitions ofwhich the lead petition was W.P.(C)12929/2018 {Ms.Saiimya Chopra v. University ofDelhi& Ors.).

4. The impugnedjudgment sets outthe relevantfacts in sufficient detail and, therefore, they need not be set out again here. The central issue before the learned Single Judge concerned the validity ofthe action of University of Delhi in including in the Fourth Admission List for the 3 years LL.B. LPA 37/2019andconnected matters Page2of[6] Course,students who were in the category of'no show' as far as the dates for counselling in terms ofthe first three Admission Lists were concerned. The Respondents herein(Petitioners before the learned Single Judge)are all General Category(GC)candidates. Their marks were admittedlyjust below the cut offmarks ofthe last admitted GC candidate. The grievance wasthat the 'no show' candidates ought not to have been included in the Fourth Admission List, and that this was in violation of Clause (iii) of the Admission Bulletin.

5. The defence ofthe University was two-fold. One was that the Petitioners had approached the Court late. Secondly, they had no vested right to be included in an admission list.

6. As far as the first plea is concerned the learned Single Judge, while rejecting it,held as under: "Addressing, now, the plea of Mr. Rupal, that the petitioners deserved to be non-suited on the ground of delay and laches, learned counsel for the petitioners has rejoined correctly,that the mere issuance ofthe Notice,inviting the"no show"candidates of the first three Admission Lists, to apply again, may not have prompted them to rush to the court, as they were unaware how many such candidates were there and, whether, even if such candidates were to re-apply,their turn would come, or not. The cause ofaction,insofar as the petitioners were concerned would, indeed, have arisen only when, after the admission process was over,they found that they had not managed to secure admission. When, at that stage, they carne to know that "no show" candidates, ofthe first three Admission Lists, had occupied the entire fourth Admission List, as well as 8 seats in the fifth Admission List,the petitioners,in my view,certainly had a right to agitate their claim before this Court. They cannot, in such LPA 37/2019andconnectedmatters Page3of[6] circumstances, be non-suited, either on the ground ofdelay and laches, or even for the reason that classes have already commenced and continued for two months. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also correctly contended,in this regard,that, though classes commenced in the first week ofAugust2018,the admission process continued till 3L'August, 2018 (admittedly the cut-offdate)andthat,therefore,there could be no question of the petitioners approaching the Court before August,2018, when the admission process came to a close, and they found themselves left in the lurch. They have approached this Court within a reasonable period ofthe said date,i.e. within less thana month and cannot,therefore, be thrown out, without addressing their grievance on merits.Even otherwise,applying the principle or Us pendens,the fact that classes may have commenced,and continued fortwo months cannotafford a ground to deny reliefto the petitioners."

7. Asfar asthe second pleais concerned,thelearned Single Judge noted that in the case in hand the University did not exercise the discretionary power it had to modify the condition in the admission bulletin but'instead acted on violationthereof;Thereasoning ofthelearned Singlejudge was asfollows; "Resultantly, the act ofthe University is inviting, for its fourth and fifth counselling, candidates, who had (not) shown up, despite their names having figured in the first three Admission Lists,hasto be held as illegal and arbitrary,and starkly violative of Clause (iii) of its own Admission Bulletin. The University would necessarily have,therefore,revisitthe said decision.Atthe same time,it would not be in the interests ofanyone - far less,in the interests ofjustice -to directthe entire exercise offourth and fifth counselling to be held afresh. Neither would it be in the interests ofjustice to interfere with the admissions ofthe students who had not shown up consequent to the first three Admission Lists, despite their names having figured therein, and who obtained admission pursuant to the fourth or the fifth Admission Lists. These students cannot be faulted for having responded to the Notice put up by the University,even ifthe Notice were,ex facie, contrary to the Admission Bulletin. As sufficient vacancies,apparently,still remain unfilled,both in the General as well as the OBC categories, to accommodate the petitioners before this Court, creation of any supernumerary seats, for the said purpose,may not be necessary."

8. Having heard Mr. Rupal, learned counsel for the Appellant Delhi University, the Court finds that the impugned order ofthe learned Single Judger balancesthe equities essentially on the basis thatthe Delhi University had acted arbitrarily in departing from the conditions stipulated in the O bulletin including the 'no show' candidates in the fourth admission list depriving the Respondents herein (Petitioners before the learned Single Judge)ofa valuable chance ofbeing included in such list.

9. The leaned Single Judge has also noted that with there being sufficient vacancies available both in the General as well as OBC categories, there would be no need to create supernumerary seats to accommodate the Petitioners i.e.the Respondents herein.

10. Mr. Rupal, in the course of his submissions pointed out that the University has taken a decision in principle to implement the judgihent of the learned Single Judge. However,in respect ofsome ofthe Respondents herein, he states that they will not get the benefit even in terms of the impugned order ofthe learned Single Judge.

11. It is for the University to explain in the contempt proceedings, which Mr.Rupal States that have been instituted by some of the aggrieved writ petitioners. The Court expresses no opinion on this submission.It will be for LPA 37/2019andconnectedmatters Page5of[6] the learned Judge dealing with the contemptpetition to examine such plea on its merits.

12. The Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment passed bythe learned Single Judge.

13. The appeals are dismissed.The pending applications are also dismissed.

14. As prayed, copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of APRIL 02,2019 nd S-MURALIDHAR,J. I.S.MEHTA,J. LPA 37/2019and connectedmatters Page6of[6]