Delhi High Court
Sandeep Kumar vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ... on 29 July, 2015
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 29th July, 2015
+ W.P.(C) 6329/2015 & CM No.1517/2015 (for directions)
SANDEEP KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.
Versus
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA
UNIVERSITY AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Sradhananda Mohapatra & Mr. Vipin
Singh, Advs. for R-1/GGSIPU.
Mr. Harshit Jain, Adv. for R-2&3.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. On 6th July, 2015 when this petition came up first before this Court,
the following order was passed:
"1. The question for consideration is as to which of the OBC candidates are
eligible for admission to the postgraduate courses in Medicine in the
respondent no.1 University.
2. The petitioner claims to be an OBC from Bihar, in the Central as well
as the State List of Bihar. He challenges the admission given to the
respondents no.2&3 namely Dr. Sunil Kumar Choudhary and Dr. Vivek
Singh who according to him are OBCs in the State List from Rajasthan and
Uttar Pradesh and not OBCs in the Central List from Rajasthan and Uttar
Pradesh. According to him, they are not eligible for admission in the Guru
Gobind Singh Indraprastha (GGSIP) University quota of admissions to
postgraduate courses in Medicine, though may be eligible in All India
quota.
3. Reliance in this regard is made on the statement of the counsel for the
GGSIP University recorded in the order dated 5th July, 2013 in W.P.(C)
W.P.(C) No.6329/2015 Page 1 of 9
No.4168/2013 titled Naveen Suhag Vs. National Board of Examinations
and in other connected petitions.
4. It is further argued that though earlier the respondents no.2&3 were
OBCs in the Central List also from their respective States but their
community (Jat) has been struck down by the Supreme Court vide
judgment dated 17th March, 2015 in W.P.(C) No.274/2014 titled Ram
Singh Vs. Union of India (2015) 4 SCC 697.
5. The senior counsel for the respondent no.1 University appearing on
advance notice on instructions states that the respondents no.2&3 have
been provisionally admitted on the basis of OBC certificates issued to them
post the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. However on enquiry it
is informed that the said OBC certificates are with respect to the State List
of the States of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh.
6. The counsels to show the Rule in this regard i.e. whether the State List
of other States of OBC is to be followed or not.
7. Issue notice.
8. Notice is accepted by the counsel for the respondent no.1 University.
9. Notice to the respondents no.2&3.
10. The respondent no.1 University to inform the respondents no.2&3 of
today‟s order and ask them to appear before this Court and file their replies
on the next date of hearing.
11. On further enquiry it is informed that though the last date for admission
is over but the admission given to the respondents no.2&3 is provisional
and subject to the undertaking obtained from them.
12. Till the next date, status quo with respect to the said admissions be
maintained.
13. List on 16th July, 2015.
2. Thereafter on 16th July, 2015, the following order was passed:
"1. Though the counsels have been heard but the question which remains
for adjudication is, whether the respondent Guru Gobind Singh
Indraprastha University (GGSIPU), while making admissions to 50% seats
in postgraduate courses under its Institutional Quota and carving out
reservation therein for Other Backward Classes (OBCs), is to follow only
the Central List of OBCs or also the OBC List of Delhi.
W.P.(C) No.6329/2015 Page 2 of 9
2. The candidates whose admissions are challenged have been admitted on
the basis of being in the OBCs List of Delhi as well as their Home State.
3. The ancillary question which arises is, whether the persons who have
done their graduation from the respondent GGSIPU, though from another
State at the time admission to undergraduate course, can now be treated as
OBCs in the List of Delhi, for the purposes of admission to Post
Graduation course.
4. A counter affidavit is deemed necessary. The same be filed on or
before 23rd July, 2015.
5. List on 23rd July, 2015."
3. The respondent No.1 Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
(GGSIPU) in its counter affidavit, with respect to the aforesaid controversy
stated:
i) The respondent No.1 GGSIPU offer MBBS course in:
a) VMMC and Safdarjang Hospital;
b) Army College of Medical Sciences; and,
c) NDMC Medical College, Bara Hindurao Hospital
affiliated to it.
ii) VMMC is owned and funded by the Central Government but it
is not a Central Educational Institution as defined by the
Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission)
Act, 2006 (2006 Act) since it is affiliated to a GGSIPU
constituted under a State Act; however it has a certain quota of
W.P.(C) No.6329/2015 Page 3 of 9
MBBS seats that are filled up on All India basis and of which
seats, a portion is reserved for OBCs from any State;
iii) In Army College of Medical Sciences, there is no OBC
reservation;
iv) In NDMC Medical College, only those OBC candidates who
belong to Delhi and whose caste forms part of the State List of
OBC for the GNCTD are considered eligible.
v) Post Graduate Medical Programmes are offered in:
a) VMMC and Safdarjang Hospital;
b) PGIMER and Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital; and,
c) ESI-PGIMSR,
all affiliated to GGSIPU and all of which are controlled and
administered by the Government of India.
vi) In the Post Graduate Medical Courses in the aforesaid
institutions, 50% of the seats are reserved under the
Institutional Quota, for MBBS students of the respondent No.1
GGSIPU and remaining 50% of the seats are filled up on All
India basis.
W.P.(C) No.6329/2015 Page 4 of 9
vii) Since the institutional quota is reserved for MBBS graduates of
respondent No.1 GGSIPU and the admission is done in Central
Government administered institutions, all candidates who hold
a valid OBC certificate from the place of their residence in any
State in the country and have done MBBS from respondent
No.1 GGSIPU are eligible for applying in the OBC quota.
viii) Both, respondents No.2&3 are „Jats‟ which caste is included in
the list of OBCs for the GNCTD and both have been issued
OBC Caste certificate from the State of their residence.
4. The senior counsel for the respondent No.1 GGSIPU however states,
that in the light of the orders aforesaid passed in this petition, respondent
No.1 GGSIPU has taken a decision to re-look into the matter of criteria for
reservation for OBCs in the institutional quota and that a decision in this
respect shall be taken.
5. The senior counsel for the respondent No.1 GGSIPU has also argued,
that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this petition for the
following reasons:
a) The petitioner was admittedly aware of the criteria to be
followed by GGSIPU for admission under the OBC category as
W.P.(C) No.6329/2015 Page 5 of 9
is evident from the petitioner having made a representation
dated 25th March, 2015 thereagainst.
b) As per the petitioner himself, GGSIPU, arbitrarily and illegally,
in the first round of counselling held on 30 th March, 2015
granted provisional admission to other State OBCs / Jat
candidates who were not covered under the OBC list notified
by GNCTD or the list published by the Central Government.
c) The second round of counselling was held on 2nd May, 2015
and the third round of counselling held on 31st May, 2015.
d) That this petition was however brought before this Court for the
first time on 6th July, 2015, long after the admissions concluded
on 2nd June, 2015 - being the last date fixed by the Supreme
Court therefor.
e) That the petitioner is guilty of laches, acquiescence and waiver
and cannot be allowed to re-open the entire admission process
at this late a stage particularly when the last date prescribed by
the Supreme court for admissions has gone by.
f) That it is also not the case of the petitioner that he, in the merit
list of OBC candidates, is immediately next to the respondents
W.P.(C) No.6329/2015 Page 6 of 9
No.2&3 for it to be said that upon their admission being
cancelled, the petitioner would ipso facto be entitled to
admission; what the petitioner is wanting is to re-open the
entire admission process and which ought not to be allowed.
6. The only thing which the counsel for the petitioner is able to contend
in response to the contentions of the senior counsel for the respondent No.1
GGSIPU recorded in paras above is, that the respondents No.2 and 3 were
admitted on 2nd June, 2015. However on enquiry as to why the petitioner
thereafter also waited till 30th June, 2015 to first file this writ petition, that
too defective, and thereafter repeatedly re-file the petition and get it listed
only on 6th July, 2015, the only reply forthcoming is that the petitioner
contacted the advocate late, owing to the summer vacation.
7. I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief on the
ground of laches, acquiescence and waiver alone. The petitioner, in the
petition has clearly admitted that he was aware of the criteria for
determination of OBCs (and impugning which this petition has been filed)
being adopted by the GGSIPU much prior to 25 th March, 2015 when he
protested thereagainst. The petitioner however participated in the admission
process and filed this petition nearly one month after the date of close of
W.P.(C) No.6329/2015 Page 7 of 9
admission. The petitioner, in the petition has pleaded that even in the first
round of counselling held on 30th March, 2015, OBCs who were not entitled
to were wrongly admitted. The nature of the cause of action and the relief
claimed in the petition is such, which required the petitioner, if aggrieved
from the criteria / procedure announced by GGSIPU and followed, to
immediately approach the Court. It cannot be lost sight of that owing to the
petitioner not impugning the said criteria / procedure at the earliest, others
whose admissions are now sought to be challenged, got admissions and on
the basis of the said admissions must have forgone the other opportunities
which they may have had. The petitioner cannot at this stage be permitted to
upset their admissions.
8. The senior counsel for the respondent No.1 GGSIPU is also correct in
his contention that what the petitioner is seeking is not merely cancellation
of admissions of respondents No.2 and 3 but of re-opening of the entire
admissions made under the OBC category. The same also cannot be
permitted.
9. In view of the aforesaid as well as the statement that the respondent
No.1 GGSIPU itself has decided to have a re-look into the OBC criteria, it is
W.P.(C) No.6329/2015 Page 8 of 9
not deemed proper to record the arguments otherwise made by the counsels
thereon, the judgments cited or to render any decision thereon.
10. The petition is thus dismissed, however binding the respondent No.1
GGSIPU to its statement aforesaid to have a re-look into the matter and
directing it to take a decision in this regard well before the commencement
of the admissions for the next academic session and to prominently
announce the same so that anyone aggrieved therefrom can avail of legal
remedies if any available.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
JULY 29, 2015 „gsr‟ (corrected and released on 22nd August, 2015) W.P.(C) No.6329/2015 Page 9 of 9