Delhi High Court
Bhawna Sharma vs University Of Delhi on 30 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: 96(2002)DLT850, 2002(63)DRJ601
Author: Manmohan Sarin
Bench: Manmohan Sarin
JUDGMENT Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking quashing of condition stipulated in Clause IV at page 4 of the brochure, issued by the Delhi University for admission to post-Doctoral/ Post-graduate course to session-2002 of the Faculty of Medical Sciences University of Delhi. The entrance test is to be held on 10.2.2002. The petitioner seeks to be permitted to take the entrance examination and if selected on merit, to be enrolled in the post graduate course commencing 2002.
2. The petitioner had earlier appeared in the written screening test on 11.2.2001, and got selected for course in Ophthalmology in Lady Harding Medical College. It is a 2 years diploma course which commenced on 2.7.2001.
3. Coursel for the petitioner submits that an enshrined in Article 51A Clause-J of the Constitution of India it is the duty of every citizen to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity. She is desirous of improving her prospects and qualification and therefore wishes to apply for a vacant seat during the current session in the post graduate degree course of 3 years. It is stated that there is a seat vacant in UCMS shahdara. An obstacle, which is coming in the way of the petitioner, is an undertaking given. The undertaking is on the following lines:
"I undertake that in the event of my admission to any degree/diploma course I will not apply for or accept admission to any course in the Faculty of Medical Sciences till I Complete the course to which I am admitted on the basis of this application. I further undertake that in the event of my resigning from the concerned course to which I am admitted. I will not appear in the next and subsequent screening tests till the ful duration of the course concerned is over."
4. Further the terms and conditions of the entrance test for post graduate degree course debars a candidate who is already pursuing any Post-Doctoreal/Post-Graduate/Diploma course. The same reads as under:-
"The candidate who is already pursuing any Post-doctoral/Post-graduate Degree/Diploma course as on 10.4.2002 will not be eligible for admission to any Post-doctoral/ Post-graduate degree/diploma courses."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petition ought to be entertained as this court has already issued notice in a similar writ petition bearing Cw No. 92/2002. Dr. Mrs. Pragya Gupta v. University of Delhi. The case of Dr. Mrs. Pragya Gupta as far as this Bench recalls is on a different footing altogether. In the said case, the petitioner had come to the court alleging that she got herself enrolled for the diploma course on a specific representation made in the prospectus that the diploma course was duly recognised by MCI. This representation, it is stated, was found to be wrong. The petitioner in these circumstances submitted that the petitioner could not be made to pursue a course, which was not recognised by the MCI and denied the chance of improving her prospects by enrolling in a degree course.
6. In the present case there is no such representation claimed. The question of enforcement of an undertaking of not seeking admission in another course during the current year of the existing course to which a party is admitted is no longer res integra. The Division Bench of this court in CW No. 642/90, by a judgment dated 2.3.1990 dismissed a similar challenge to the condition, which debarred the candidate from taking admission into another course, while she was pursuing a course. In the case before the Division Bench the introduction of such a condition was also challenged. The rationale as given by the Division Bench is as under :-
"It is true that in 1988 this condition was not there but in our opinion this condition has been rightly imposed with effect from 1989. It is well known that there is a great shortage of number of seats available for post graduate courses. If the candidates like the petitioners which have gained admission to post graduate courses, are allowed to abandon the same midstream and joined some other courses, the effect is that seats which they have abandoned would be completely lost. If the petitioners are allowed to take the examination in 1990, they do not complete the course which they have to be in 1989 and after the petitioners are successful, the effect of this would be that atleast two seats which should have gone to some other petitioners/candidates, if the petitioners have not joined 1989 course, would be lying vacant and will never be filled up. It is in this background and to prevent such instances from occurring that the University authorities had started taking aforesaid undertaking from the candidates with effect from 1989 and onwards. Candidates who take part in 1989 examination, are not similarly situated with the candidates who took part in 1988 examination with effect from 1989 onwards. This condition is being imposed in respect of all the candidates who were successful in gaining admission on there taking the entrance examination and merely because in 1988 such a condition had not been imposed, though it was desirable to do so, is not a ground for contending that after 1989 such a condition should not have been imposed."
7. A coordinate Bench of this court has similarly rejected challenge to this condition in CW No. 642/90 by a judgment. Counsel at this stage also attempted to urge that since there was a vacant seat ..degree course, which was going waste, therefore petitioner should be entitled to apply as an exception.
8. I am afraid carving out an exception from the undertaking would undermine and defeat the very purpose of introducing the undertaking. The circumstances in which the seat in Degree Course at UCMC shahdra had allegedly fallen vacant, had not been disclosed. In any case, it would not avoid the wastage of the seat, the petitioner would vacate in the Diploma Course in Ohphthalmology being pursued by her. This is precisely why the undertakings are obtained. No such exceptional ground is made out.
9. Petition has no merit and is dismissed.