Delhi High Court
Ruchi Agarwal vs Ministry Of Human Resources & ... on 13 August, 2009
Author: Anil Kumar
Bench: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No.10142/2009
% Date of Decision: 13.08.2009
Ruchi Agarwal .... Petitioner
Through Mr.Vijay Kumar, Advocate
Versus
Ministry of Human Resources & Development & .... Respondents
Ors.
Through Mr.M.P.Singh, Advocate for the
respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Ms.Jinu, Advocate for the respondent
No.3.
Mr.Amit Bansal, Advocate for the
respondent No.4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
1. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No.4, Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies to admit her to the course of Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA). The petitioner had applied for course of BBA on 29th April, 2009 and appeared in the entrance examination by roll No.19574 on 7th June, 2009.
W.P(C) No.10142/2009 Page 1 of 10
2. The bulletin of information for admission to the course of BBA detailed the eligibility conditions and the selection process. After the entrance exam the list of successful candidates in the written test had to be displayed on 17th June, 2009 at SSCBS College notice board and on the college website. Based on the performance in the written examination shortlisted candidates were liable to appear for group discussion and interview and on the day of interview the candidates were liable to submit the confirmed result of the qualifying exam and proof of other eligibility requirements. The bulletin of information categorically stipulated that in case, the candidate will fail to produce the result of qualifying exam and proof of other eligibility requirements, such a candidate will lose claim to admission.
3. To be eligible for interview, the candidate, therefore, had to produce original certificates including Class 10 certificate as evidence of date of birth, marks statement of Class 12 and category certificate (for reserved category).
4. The plea of the petitioner is that in the entrance examination petitioner was placed at serial No.158 and pursuant to that when she appeared for group discussion and interview she was not allowed to participate on the ground that she did not have "non creamy layer certificate".
W.P(C) No.10142/2009 Page 2 of 10
5. The petitioner contended that on 27th June, 2009 Joint Dean Student Welfare had permitted petitioner to appear on provisional basis subject to her furnishing OBC certificate and non creamy layer certificate on 29th June, 2009. On 29th June, 2009 she wanted to produce the non creamy layer certificate till 5 PM, however, that was not allowed and the petitioner therefore, could not participate in group discussion and interview and consequently she has been denied admission. The petitioner, therefore, complained to the Vice Chancellor and after failing to take admission in BBA at SSCBS College, she has filed the present petition.
6. The petition is contested by the respondent No.4 and an affidavit of Dr. (Mrs.) Poonam Verma, Principal has been filed. The respondent No.4 has asserted that no fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated and the respondent acted in accordance with the rules and regulations of admission to the Bachelor of Business Administration. It is contended that the petitioner does not have a vested right to claim admission in the respondent college de hors its rules and regulations and practice. Reliance was placed by the respondent No.4 on the stipulation in the bulletin of information that if a candidate will not submit the proof of eligibility requirement, such a candidate will lose claim to admission. The relevant condition is reproduced here for the sake of reference:-
W.P(C) No.10142/2009 Page 3 of 10
"On the day of the interview the candidates must submit the confirmed result of the qualifying exam and proof of other eligibility requirements, failing which the candidate will lose claim to admission."
7. The respondent No.4 further asserted that since the petitioner failed to produce `non creamy layer' certificate on 29th June, 2009 which was an essential eligibility condition, she was not allowed to participate in the interview and group discussion and thereafter she has not been admitted. The respondent No.4 also reiterated that for the academic year 2009-2010 written exam was held on 7th June, 2009 and the result was declared on 17th June, 2009 and on the basis of the result of written examination, a list of shortlisted candidates was prepared which had four times the candidates than the number of seats which were offered. The candidates were directed to appear for group discussion and interview, however, only those candidates who had with them the eligibility certificates were allowed to participate in group discussion and the interview.
8. The plea of the respondent NO.4 is that since the petitioner had applied under the category of OBC-Non Creamy Layer she was liable to produce the original certificate at the time of group discussion and interview. On 27th June, 2009 the petitioner had obtained the permission from the Joint Dean, Student Welfare which was granted according to the request of the petitioner till Monday morning 10.30 AM, 29th June, 2009. The petitioner did not produce the OBC certificate W.P(C) No.10142/2009 Page 4 of 10 of „non creamy layer‟. Even on Monday morning and sought more time till 5 PM which was not acceded to and the petitioner was not allowed to participate in group discussion and interview and consequently has not been given admission.
9. The writ petition is also contested by the respondent No.4 on the ground that according to the admission schedule the admission process was completed for the reserved category on 5th July, 2009 and final selection list was declared and the vacant seats of the OBC category were transferred to the other eligible candidates on 10th July, 2009 and those have been filled up by the respondent college and, therefore, there are no seats now and consequently the petitioner is not entitled for admission to the said BBA course.
10. Regarding the permission granted by Joint Dean Student Welfare it is contended that it was completely misplaced and the requirement of providing OBC -non creamy layer certificate was mandatory and could not be waived off and, therefore, the petitioner could not be allowed to appear provisionally for group discussion and interview. The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has also relied on Ashok Kumar vs. UOI, (2008) 6 SCC 1 holding that reservation for OBC shall not include the creamy layer. The learned counsel for the respondent has also relied on Sangeeta Sharma v. University of Delhi and Ors, 57(1995) DLT 80 holding that whoever fails to submit the documents within the W.P(C) No.10142/2009 Page 5 of 10 stipulated time will necessarily have to be ignored in the matter and in that process if a candidate with lesser marks gets admitted, the former cannot complain as for the former, it is the penalty for default and for the latter it is the prize for vigil.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the writ petition, counter affidavits and the documents filed by the parties. This is not disputed that petitioner had applied in the reserved category of OBC. To get admission in the reserved category of OBC petitioner also had to establish that she does not belong to `creamy layer' and consequently she was liable to produce a certificate regarding `non creamy layer'.
12. This has not been disputed and cannot be disputed by the petitioner that the bulletin of information categorically stipulated that on the day of interview, the petitioner had to submit the result of qualifying exam and proof of other eligibility requirement which included Class 10 certificate as evidence of date of birth, marks statement of Class 12 and category certificate which was the OBC certificate along with the stipulation that the petitioner did not belong to `creamy layer'. This also cannot be denied that the petitioner could not produce the certificate at the time of group discussion and interview. Therefore, the action of the respondent not to permit the petitioner for group discussion and interview cannot be faulted. Another W.P(C) No.10142/2009 Page 6 of 10 plea of the petitioner is that the Joint Dean Student Welfare had provisionally granted permission to the petitioner to appear without OBC certificate and non creamy layer certificate. The petitioner, however, has failed to establish that the Joint Dean Student Welfare could waive off the requirement for admission to the course of BBA. In any case perusal of the record reveals that even petitioner had sought time to produce OBC and non creamy layer certificate on 27th June, 2009 uptil 10.30 AM on 29th June, 2009. From the letter dated 29th June, 2009 written to the Vice Chancellor, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure D by the petitioner, it is also apparent that the petitioner could not produce this OBC and non creamy layer certificates even till 10.30 AM on 29th June, 2009 as the petitioner had again sought time till 5 PM. The respondents have categorically asserted that the Joint Dean Student Welfare could not have waived the mandatory requirement of production of eligibility certificate at the time of interview and group discussion. From the documents produced and the relevant rules it is apparent that the Joint Dean Student Welfare did not have such power to waive off the mandatory condition. In any case even that permission which was granted by Joint Dean Student Welfare had expired on 29th June, 2009 in the morning at 10.30 AM by which time the petitioner had not been able to produce his original `non creamy layer' certificate. The petitioner has also not disclosed the cogent reason for non production of non creamy layer certificate. The petitoner had applied for admission to the course of BBA on 24th April, W.P(C) No.10142/2009 Page 7 of 10 2009. When the petitioner had applied for non cream layer certificate has not been disclosed. In the circumstances, the act of the respondent in not permitting the petitioner to participate in the group discussion and interview on account of non production of eligibility certificate in accordance with the selection process as stipulated in the bulletin of information which has been held to be mandatory cannot be faulted.
13. A Division Bench of this Court while considering similar pleas regarding admission to the LLB course and non production of eligibility documents had held that if admission list cannot be prepared without the eligibility documents and if an deadline or outer limit as prescribed for submission of documents to prove eligibility, which is essential for determining whether one should be included in the admission list or not, then it cannot be left to the convenience of each candidate otherwise chaos and confusion will be the result. In this case according to the bulletin of information only a graduate or post graduate with at least 50% marks or equivalent grade point in aggregate was eligible to appear in the entrance test. A candidate seeking admission should have also completed 20 years of age by a particular date stipulated in the bulletin of information. The eligibility document according to the bulletin of information for admission to LLB course had to be submitted within one week from the commencement of test result. In these circumstances, the pleas of the candidates who had not submitted the W.P(C) No.10142/2009 Page 8 of 10 eligibility documents within one week were held to be not eligible for admission to the LLB course despite passing the entrance examination.
14. The respondents have also categorically stated in an affidavit that on 5th July, 2009 the admission in the reserved category had been completed and the vacant seats in the reserved category had been transferred to other categories and the admission process has been completed. Consequently, it is not possible to admit the petitioner even if for some reason she is held to be eligible.
15. The respondents have also filed an additional affidavit contending that the petitioner is not entitled for admitting in OBC quota as she does not belong to one of the castes included in the central list of other backward classes and according to the caste certificate dated 14th June, 2007 she is eligible to avail benefits only in the State of Bihar and not the Central Government. In the circumstances, it is contended that the petitioner does not have vested right to claim admission in the reserved category.
16. As the petitioner had not submitted the requisite certificate at the time of group discussion and interview and, therefore, it has to be held that she was not eligible for admission. The petitioner is also not eligible for admission to Delhi as the OBC certificate stipulates that this is valid only in the State of Bihar.
W.P(C) No.10142/2009 Page 9 of 10
17. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed and, therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own cost.
August 13, 2009 ANIL KUMAR, J.
„k‟
W.P(C) No.10142/2009 Page 10 of 10