Amritpreet Singh Matharu and Anr v. The Principal Shri Guru Tegh Bahadur Khalsa College and Ors

1. The petitioner seeks admission in either of the course i.e. “B.Sc. Physical Science Computer Science/B.Sc.Physical Science Electronics.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners, at the time of the filling of the admission form, had opted for (i) B.Sc. 2016:DHC:6794 (Applied Physical Science) Analytical Method in Chemistry and Bio Chemistry, (ii) B.Sc. (Applied Physical Science) inclusive Chemistry and (iii) B.Sc.(Hons.) Computer Science in the science category and B.A. (Hons) Punjabi in the Arts/Humanities/Social Science category. It is contended that the petitioner, while applying for B.Sc.(Hons.) Computer Science was under an impression that the he was applying for B.Sc. Physical Science Computer Science/B.Sc. Physical Science Electronics.

3. The petitioner could not get admission in any of the four subjects as per the cut-off lists. It is contended that the petitioner is eligible as per the seventh cut-off list for admission in B.Sc. Physical Science Computer Science and B.Sc. Physical Science Electronics in the minority quota.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner had only applied for three courses in science category and had not applied for B.Sc. Physical Science Computer Science and B.Sc.Physical Science Electronics.

5. It is contended that the application is online in the dropdown menu, all the courses were shown and the petitioner, at his own discretion, had applied for only four courses. It is contended that as per the Information Bulletin, the petitioner had complete discretion to apply for as many courses as the petitioner was eligible for, but the petitioner had only applied for three courses in Science stream, i.e. B.Sc. (Applied Physical Science) inclusive Chemistry and B.Sc.(Hons.) Computer Science, as B.A.(Hons.) Punjabi in Arts/Humanities/Social Science.

6. It is contended that once the application form has been filled up, no student can be permitted to change the option after the last date and more so, after the cut-off lists have been displayed. He relies on the decision of the Division bench in Pallavi Sharma versus College of Vocational Studies & Anr., 221(2015) DLT 738(DB), wherein this Court has held as under:-

6. The learned Single Judge did not agree with the said contention and dismissed the writ petition holding that–

***** ***** *****

8. As noticed above, in the Bulletin of Information, 2015-16 issued by the first respondent College itself the procedure for admission was specifically mentioned. As could be seen, the applicants have to mention in the OMR Form both the choice of college and choice of courses. Admittedly, the appellant/petitioner failed to include B.A. (Vocational Studies) in her choice of courses. Therefore, it is not open to her to claim admission in that course after the declaration of the cut-off percentage.

10. We may, at the outset, mention that all courses available in colleges for which registration is done through OMR Pre-Admission Form are included in the said Form itself at Column 11. The Information Bulletin, 2015-16 issued by the University of Delhi contained important instructions for candidates for filling up OMR Form wherein it was specifically mentioned – “Select the course of study you would like to pursue by darkening appropriate bubble. The bubbles must be darkened properly. There is no limit on number of courses to be selected.”

11. It was also made clear in the instructions that information or data furnished on the Pre-Admission Form is the sole responsibility of the applicant.

13. That being so, we do not find any substance in the contention that the appellant/petitioner failed to mention the course of B.A. (Vocational Studies) in the OMR Form since she was not aware of the difference between a normal B.A. course and B.A. (Vocational Studies). The said plea appears to be only an after-thought to take advantage of the situation since the cut-off percentage has now been declared as 88% for B.A. (Vocational Studies) in the 3 rd cut-off percentage list. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the appellant/petitioner failed to opt for the course of B.A. (Vocational Studies) while submitting the OMR Pre-Admission Form. Therefore, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, grant of admission to the appellant/petitioner who has not even applied for admission to the course would be detrimental to the students who had applied for admission to the said course. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner that no other candidate would be prejudiced if the petitioner is granted admission on the basis of the marks secured by her is therefore untenable.

14. At any rate, the law is well settled that the procedure prescribed in the Prospectus/Bulletin of Information issued by the institutions is binding and no mandamus can be issued directing the educational institutions to act contrary to their own procedure (vide Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjit Kaur; JT (2010) 7 SC 179).”