Delhi High Court
Pankaj Kumar Tiwari & Ors. vs Vice-Chancellor University Of Delhi & ... on 14 October, 2014
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Chief Justice, Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 25.09.2014
Pronounced on: 14.10.2014.
+ LPA 590/2014
PANKAJ KUMAR TIWARI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Appellants in person
Versus
VICE-CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Yanmi Phazang, Advocate for
Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate
+ W.P.(C)495/2014
PANKAJ KUMAR TIWARI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Petitioners in person
Versus
VICE-CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Yanmi Phazang, Advocate for
Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
JUDGMENT
: Ms.G.ROHINI, CHIEF JUSTICE
1. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.495/2014 filed LPA No.590/2014 aggrieved by the dismissal of CM No.10338/2014 by the learned Single Judge thereby declining the request of the petitioners for early hearing of the writ petition.
LPA 590/2014 & W.P.(C)495/2014 Page 1 of 52. When the LPA is listed before us for admission, having regard to the nature of the controversy involved we thought it would be appropriate to hear the writ petition itself for which the petitioners, appearing in person, as well as the learned counsel for the respondent agreed.
3. The petitioners, three in number, had appeared for the Entrance Test held by the University of Delhi for admission to LL.B. course for the Academic Year 2013-14. The petitioners 1 & 2 secured the ranks 1475 and 2538 respectively in General Category, whereas the petitioner No.3 secured rank 1247 in OBC category. The counselling for admission for different categories was held as per merit in the concerned category and the vacant seats were also filled up in the counselling held on 29 th & 31st July, 2014. The petitioners were admittedly not qualified for admission on the basis of the ranks secured by them in the Entrance Test.
4. On 07.08.2013, the petitioners made an application to the CPIO, University of Delhi under the RTI Act, 2005 requesting to furnish certain information pertaining to LL.B. admissions 2013-14. In response to the same, the second respondent by letter dated 07.10.2013 furnished the complete data of LL.B. Admissions 2013-14.
5. It is pleaded in the petition that on verification of the said data, the petitioners found that several irregularities had taken place in the admission process and therefore, they filed a joint complaint dated 08.11.2013 pointing out the alleged irregularities and requesting the respondent No.1 to intervene. By letter dated 03.01.2014, the petitioners were informed by the University that the irregularities alleged by the petitioners had been checked LPA 590/2014 & W.P.(C)495/2014 Page 2 of 5 from the records provided by the Admission Committee, but no discrepancy had been found.
6. Thereafter, the present writ petition came to be filed reiterating the alleged irregularities in the admission process and seeking to set up an independent panel under the supervision of this court to investigate into the irregularities in admission and to direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to cancel the admission of the candidates who are ineligible for admission. The petitioners also seek a consequential direction to give admission to them in LL.B. course.
7. We have heard the petitioners who appeared in person as well as the learned counsel appearing for the University.
8. It is alleged in the writ petition that many candidates were given admission altering the category in which they sought admission and that the said alteration is in violation of the rules mentioned in the Bulletin of Information issued by the University while notifying the Admission Schedule for 2013-14. It is also alleged that many seats are not filled up thereby denying admission to the deserving and willing candidates. It is alleged that altogether 276 seats are still vacant as per the data of admissions obtained by the petitioners under the RTI Act, 2005.
9. The above-said allegations have been specifically denied in the counter filed on behalf of the University stating that the change in the category has never been entertained, however, the requests for correction in the admission form on production of a valid category certificate have been considered and allowed if such a request is made during the ongoing admission process. It is also explained that a total 152 cases were pending LPA 590/2014 & W.P.(C)495/2014 Page 3 of 5 due to non-declaration of result/non-submission of document by 31.08.2013 which is the last date prescribed by the University.
10. Having carefully gone through the material available on record, we are unable to find fault with the procedure adopted by the University in allowing the corrections on the basis of the valid certificates produced. We do not find any substance in the contention of the petitioners that it would amount to changing the category which is prohibited in the Bulletin of Information issued by the University. The allegation that the University had failed to fill up all the seats is also without any substance in the light of the explanation offered by the University.
11. At any rate, this is a case where the petitioners approached this Court in January, 2014 whereas the admissions were closed on 31.08.2013 itself. Moreover, having made specific allegations about the validity of the admission of some of the candidates, the petitioners failed to implead them as party respondents. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioners to seek admission by cancelling their admissions.
12. The further contention of the petitioners that they are entitled for admission for the academic year 2014-15 on the basis of the rank secured by them in the entrance test held for the year 2013-14 is equally untenable. In fact, this issue was already decided by this Court in LPA No.343/2014 dated 02.05.2014. While relying upon the decisions in Dr.Mundhe Kailas Maharudra Vs. AIIMS, New Delhi MANU/DE/3113/2010, Rajat Goel Vs. Ministry of Human Resource and Development (Govt. of India) MANU/DE/7235/2011, SLP(C) No.9544/2012 and Faiza Choudhary Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir (2012) 10 SCC 149, it was made clear by this LPA 590/2014 & W.P.(C)495/2014 Page 4 of 5 Court in LPA No.343/2014 that the carry forward principle is inapplicable and no admissions can be made on the basis of the merit list of the previous year. Hence, the petitioners cannot re-agitate the said issue.
13. Viewed from any angle, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
14. Consequently, the LPA shall stand disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
OCTOBER 14, 2014 kks LPA 590/2014 & W.P.(C)495/2014 Page 5 of 5