Delhi High Court
Archit Vashisht vs Guru Gobind Indraprastha University ... on 19 September, 2007
Author: S. Ravindra Bhat
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat
JUDGMENT S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. The petitioners seek directions to the respondent University i.e. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (hereafter "the University") to fill vacancies in the Bachelor of Computer Applications (hereafter referred to as "BCA course") and the Master of Computer Applications (hereafter referred to as "MCA course"), from amongst the unfilled seats available in the University and its affiliated institutions.
2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 6901/2007 applied for admission to the BCA course; the petitioners in W.P.(C) 6902/2007 applied for admission the MCA course. The University issued admission brochures on 7th March, 2007 for the academic session 2007-2008. The brochure elaborated the procedure for filling seats in the University managed as well as the University affiliated institutions. A common entrance test was contemplated and held under Chapter 9; this was followed by a Counselling procedure, described in Chapter 10. The counselling was in two sessions, each providing opportunity for specified categories of candidates/students with different rankings on various dates. Those unsuccessful in the first round of counselling were entitled to participate in the second round of counselling. The second round of counselling by the designated authority of the Unviersity ended on 30/31st July, 2007. According to the Brochure of the University, there were 760 seats in the BCA courses offered by the institutions affiliated with the University. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 6901/07 was ranked 2448 in the common entrance test. He attended both counselling sessions but was unable to obtain admission since the last student given admission for the BCA course had a ranking of 2325.
3. The petitioners in W.P.(C) 6902/2007 had applied for the MCA course. Here too the second counselling commenced on 23rd July, 2007 and ended on 30th July, 2007. The petitioners had secured rank No. 4817 and 4260. It is alleged that the second conselling stopped at rank No. 3500; therefore, the petitioners did not secure admission.
4. Both sets of writ petitioners allege that notwithstanding the closing of the second counselling session, past experience has shown that several seats remain unfilled within the University as well as its affiliated institutions. This year was no exception. Mr. R.K. Saini contended that the University, in order to fill seats in some courses such as Master of Business Administration (MBA), LL.B. and Bachelor of Journalism, (after second counselling had ended similarly in the end of July 2007) nevertheless held an extended second counselling on 12th August, 2007. By this process, the respondent University sought to admit students with rankings beyond 3000, in those courses. Particular reliance had been placed upon the one such second extended counselling session for the MBA programme which took place on 12th August, 2007.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the University acted in an arbitrary and whimsical manner in picking and choosing between candidates who participated in common entrance tests. It was contended that once the University realized that vacancies existed in a large number of courses, it should have adopted an uniform approach and procedure by applying a same yard stick and fairly carried out the extended counselling session for all courses. By singling out only three courses and not including other courses where vacancies existed the University acted in discriminatory manner. This has caused grave prejudice to the candidates.
6. Mr. Saini contended that in the BCA course as many as 21 seats are yet unfilled. They are earmarked for students from the "outside Delhi" quota and form part of the 15% quota set apart for the purpose. The University should fairly take appropriate measures to convert those unfilled seats into Delhi students quota seats and applying the analogy of second extended counselling fill them from amongst eligible candidates.
7. It was also contended that in the absence of a cut off date, for admission there was no legal or statutory impediment for filling up the unfilled seats. It was submitted that if the University holds a proper extended second counselling even today, it would be acting in a fair and non-discriminatory manner and subserving the larger objective of education. It would also ensure that seats in such courses, which are valuable resources, do not go waste.
8. The petition was resisted by Mr. G.D. Goel, learned Counsel for the respondent University. He contended that the second extended counselling conducted for the MBA, and two other courses were due to peculiar facts. Even there, the counselling ended on 12-8-2007 and admissions ended soon thereafter. The University cannot permit the admission process to be open ended. Counsel submitted that instructions/classes in the courses to which the Petitioners applied, started on 1-8-2007. Therefore the Petitioners cannot claim a right to admission, nor seek a direction that another counselling session should be held.
9. Learned Counsel also relied on the following extract of the University's Admission Brochure:
(xi) After the Second Counselling is over and the admissions are made by the University there will be no Third Counselling and no admission will be made by the University or the Institutes thereafter.
(xii) IT IS MADE AMPLY CLEAR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CANDIDATES THAT ANY ADMISSION MADE DIRECTLY BY ANY INSTITUTE/COLLEGE WILL BE CONSIDERED ILLEGAL AND UNAUTHORIZED AND UNIVERSITY WILL NOT ISSUE ANY ENROLLMENT NUMBER TO ANY SUCH CANDIDATE(S) ALSO. UNIVERSITY WILL NOT CONDUCT ANY EXAMINATION IN RESPECT OF SUCH CANDIDATES. STUDENTS AND PARENTS WILL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE IF THEY TAKE ADMISSION IN ANY AFFILIATED COLLEGE/INSTITUTE DIRECTLY.
(xiii) The list of students on close of admissions after the second counselling shall be treated as final list of admissions and the same shall be displayed on the website of the University (www.ipu.ac.in).
(xiv) The Academic Session would commence w.e.f. Aught 1, 2007. All the candidates who get admission in First/Second Counselling must report to their respective institutes/University Schools either on 1st August, 2007 or on the following day of the admission, whichever is later.
Note: It may be noted that students taking admission in any of the programmes/Institutes will also be bound to abide by the provisions of Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Act, 1998 as well as Statues. Ordinances and Regulations framed there under.
10. Both the Petitioners participated in the admission procedure held for filling seats in courses offered by the University or its affiliated colleges. They were unsuccessful in securing admission, though they participated in two counselling sessions. Their grievance today is that the University hold an extended second counselling session on 12-8-2007 for three and not all curses. There are 21 vacancies in the BCA course for "outside Delhi" candidates. Likewise, there are two unfilled MCA seats in a participating and University affiliated college.
11. All public and State agencies have to follow principles of fairness, non-arbitrariness and reasonableness. The University here is certainly no exception. This requirement of having to conform to Constitutional standards, however, does not detract from the essential functioning of the University as an academic Institution setting standards for its affiliating institutions and colleges in the areas it is traditionally expected to. They are eligibility for admission, standards of admission, syllabi for various courses, recruitment policies, examination policies etc. In the undoubted exercise of its powers and indeed obligation to do so, the University prescribed the procedure for filling seats in all the courses including BCA and MCA. The candidates desirous of admission had to appear in a Common Entrance Test and depending on their ranking, participate one or other round of counselling. The methodology of counselling is now a universally accepted procedure conforming to fairness. It affords maximum opportunity in a symatrical manner, to such candidate for electing the course or the institution of his choice. The basic rules for such counselling session are set by the University or the academic Body entrusted with the task. Here the University mandated two rounds of counselling. Admittedly, the second round of counselling in both the cases commenced on 23.7.2007 and ended on the 30/31st July, 2007. The Petitioners could not secure admission. It is also undisputed that no third or extended second round of counselling was held for BCA and MCA courses. Chapter 10(ii) and (ix) & (xii) cumulatively show that the intention of the University that there can be no third round of counselling and that there is a closure as far as admissions are concerned, when the second round of counselling ends.
12. There is now some authority for the proposition that public or State agencies are bound by norms - be in the form of guidelines, circulars or notifications - which regulate and govern their functioning. Despite the non-statutory character of such circulars they bind the maker i.e the public authority or State agency. In this case rules of the game i.e rules of admission were prescribed in the brochure and made known to all. That the University for some reasons accommodated an extended second round of counselling for a few courses, to my mind cannot be a ground to compel it to disregard the rules contained in the brochure. They categorically mandate that no third counselling or further admission procedure is permissible and that the list of students on the close of admissions after second counselling shall be treated as final list of admissions.
13. The above reasoning ought to have ordinarily been dispositive of these cases. Yet an argument was made that 21 BCA seats would go abegging since they were earmarked for non-Delhi candidates and remained unfilled. No doubt the object of all admission procedures is to ensure that seats are filled because such opportunities are valuable resources in a field where demand always outstrips supply. Yet, the public interest element of ensuring that such seats should not be wasted (or allowed to lapse) are to be balanced with another important public interest in maintaining certain academic standards. The competing public interest value here is that there should be finality for the entire admission process failing which there would be uncertainty and from the late entrants' perspective, loss of attendance. The fine balance to be achieved between these two competing public interest is essentially a policy choice already been made by the concerned body i.e. the University. It has mandated closure of admission after second counselling. Such policy choice is neither manifestly arbitrary or facially unreasonable as to warrant judicial intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
14. In view of the above findings, these petitions have to fail; they are accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.