Surajmal Memorial Education Society & Anr v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors

Judgment reserved on: . 07 .2025

Judgment pronounced on: . 09 . 2025

+ LPA 46/2023 & CM APL.4949/2025

SURAJMAL MEMORIAL EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR .

. Apelants

Through:

Mr. Kirti Upal, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Kumar Utkarsh, Adv. for A - 1. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khana, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Kumar Utkarsh, Adv. for A - 2.

versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS . .Respondents

Through:

Mr. Dhruv Rohatgi , Adv. for R - 1 & R - 2 . Ms. Anita Sahani, Advocate for R - 3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL , J.

¶1The present A peal asails the corectn es of the Judgment dated 17.05.2023 [hereinafter refe the Impugned Order "] pased by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 14678/202 and conected maters , whereby the admisions conducted by the Ap pelant œ Maharaja Surajmal Institute of T echnology [ hereinafter refered to as —MSIT" ] under the Management Quota for the academic sesion 202 œ23 were held to be contrary to the aplicable statutory

2 of

provisions, namely, the Delhi Profesional Coleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fe e, Regulation of Admision, Fixation of Non - Exploitative Fe and Other Measures to Ensure Equity and Excelence) Act, 207 [hereinafter referred to a , as wel as Delhi Profesional Coleges or Institutions (Prohibition of capitation Fe, Regula tion of Admision, Fixation of the Non - exploitative Fe and other measures to ensure Equity & Excelence) Rules, 207

[hereinafter referred to as — the Rules "] , and the circulars isued by the Directorate of Higher Education, Government of NCT of Delhi

[her einafter referred to as —GNCTD"] , and Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University

[hereinafter referred University"] . By the Impugned Order , while the admisions already granted were protected in the larger interest of students, a penalty was im posed whereby the Management Quota seats of MSIT were reduced to "Nil' for the succeeding academi œ24.

FACTUAL MATRIX

¶2In order to comprehend the isues involved in the present case, relevant facts in brief are required to be noticed . T he A pelant No. 1, Surajmal Memorial Education Society (Regd.), is a registered society engaged in imparting higher and profesional education. Apelant No. 2, MSIT is a self - financing private institution established under the aegis of Apelant No. 1 , afil iated to GSIP University, recognized under Section 2(f) of the UGC Act, and aproved by the Al India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).

¶3In terms of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, 10% of the

3 of

sanctioned intake in B.Tech. courses at MSIT was earmarked for admision under the Management Quota. For the Academic Sesion œ23, MSIT undertok the admision proces for these seats.

¶4On 2.09.202, the Directorate of Higher Education, GNCTD , isued a circular directing the University to create an online portal through which information regarding availability of seats and merit lists could be acesed by prospective aplicants. Pursuant thereto, the University isued further circulars dated

27.09.202 and 14.10.202 seking to ope rationalise the admision proces through such portal. These circulars, as wel as the admision procedure adopted by MSIT, became the subject mater of chalenge in W.P.(C) No. 14678/202 filed by MSIT along with thre other institutions.

¶5Around the sa me time, a separate writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 1906/202, was filed by one student, Shubham Jha, who aleged non - transparency in the proces of distribution of admision forms. By order dated 08.09.202 , the learned Single Judge directed the concerned ins titutes to isue the requisite aplication form; that direction was complied with, and t apeared in the relevant aplicant lists and he was ultimately admited during the admision cycle (the record shows his admision to k place in October 202) .

¶6Prior to the above circulars, MSIT on 16.09.202 had published a list of 69 aplicants who had aplied for admision under the Management Quota. Thereafter, MSIT conducted counseling betwen

4 of

27.10.202 and 2 9 .10.202, and subs equently admited 62 students .

¶7On 17.10.202, in the writ procedings , the learned Single Judge recorded a prima facie view about the impugned circulars and directed the University to ascertain the factual position regarding the admision procese s then underway. Meanwhile, the University isued further notifications on 18.10.202 and

02.1.202, publishing consolidated lists of aplicants for Management Quota seats and requiring institutions to conduct counseling acordingly. By 29.10.202, MSIT had substantialy completed its admisions under the Management Quota .

¶8T he foregoing sequence of these events, and the interplay betwen the statutory scheme under the Act and the Rules , the administrative directions isued by GNCTD, and the subse quent circulars of University, formed the backdrop of the Impugned Order dated 17.05.2023 . PROCEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE

¶9The writ petitions filed by MSIT and other institutions primarily questioned the validity of the circulars isue d by the Directorate of Higher Education , GNCTD and GSIP University in September œ October 202, contending that the same traveled beyond the statutory framework of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It was urged that the directions requiring a centr alized portal and consolidated merit lists were isued at a stage when the admision proces had already comenced, and that compliance therewith was neither feasible nor legaly mandated.

5 of

10.

The learned Single Judge, upon considering the rival submision s and the material placed on record, held that the admision proces folowed by MSIT for the Management Quota seats during the academic sesion 202 œ23 was contrary to the governing statutory provisions, the Act, the Rules framed thereunder, and the circu lars isued by GNCTD and the University. At the same time, having regard to the fact that students had already ben admited and were pursuing their courses, the admisions were not disturbed.

1.

As a measure of penalty, however, the learned Single Judge upheld the decision of the

University to reduce the Management Quota seats of MSIT to Nil for the suceding academic sesion 2023 œ24. It is this direction, along with the findings leading thereto, which forms the subject mater of chalenge in the present Leters Patent Apeal . CONTENTIONS OF THE APELANT S

12.

Learned counsel for the Apelant contend ed that the isue regarding the validity and aplicability of the GNCTD Circular dated

2.09.202 and the subsequent notifications isued by the

University for the academic sesion 202 - 23 already stands setled by this Court . Reliance was placed on the o rder dated 04.08.20 2 3 pased in LPA No. 563/2023 titled Vivekanand Profesional Institution of Profesional Institute vs Government of NCT o f Delhi , wherein it was held that the authority had no jurisdiction to isue such directions . Further reliance was placed on LPA No. 482/2023 titled as Norakshi Dahiya vs GSIPU , decided on

31.08.2023, wherein the Circulars

6 of

dated 2.09.202, 27.09.202 an d 14.10.202 were held to be ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(g) of the Constitution of India , as wel as

violative of provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder .

13.

It was urged that once the admisions proces has comenced, the governing rules for the admisions canot be altered midway. The comencement of proces is traceable to the date of publication of the brochure of GSIP University for the academic sesion 202 - 23, which set out the procedure for admision, including under the Managemen t Quota . As per the brochure guidelines contained therein, the Apelant isued an advertisement on 26.08.202 in the newspaper for filing the management quota. Pursuant thereto, 69 students who had aplied were enlisted, and the said list was published a t the website of the institute along with the marks obtained by them in the qualifying examination. Subsequently, the list was frozen on

16.09.202, i.e. , much before the isuance of circulars dated

2.09.202 and 27.09.202 , whereby the proces for admis ion to the M anagement Qu ota was sought to be modified .

14.

It was further contended that the Apelant s did not indulge in any unfair practice s or procedures to deprive any meritorious candidate from aplying for the M anagement Qu ota . E xcept for a condonab le delay of a few days under Section 4(14) of the Act atributable to court procedings and the delay in creation of the Government's portal, no violation ocured . Though the merit list publication was delayed owing to

subsequen t circulars dated 2.09.202 and 27.09.202, no prejudice was caused , as the list had already ben published within time, and no

7 of

complaint was received . Registration under the Directorate of Higher Education, GNCTD Circular dated

2.09.202 and Unive rsity Circular dated

27.09.202 began on

18.10.202, yet the course - and institute - specific lists directed by the government were never provided . Consequently, the Apelant s proceded with its counseling schedule submited on 07.10.202 and as permited by the Court order dated 16.09.202. Acordingly, first - round counseling was held on 27.10.202 with prior intimation to the University, folowed by second - round counseling on 28 œ29.10.202, both conducted in a fre, fair, and transparent maner, with al admisions duly intimated to the U niversity, which also acepted the prescribed share of fes at Rs. 20,0 per student.

15.

Learned counsel next argued that no punishment is prescribed under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder, and ther efore the direction reducing 10% of the M anagement Q uota seats of the Apelant Institution for the academic sesion 2023 - 24 to nil is beyond the scope of judicial review. Rel iance was placed on the case

of M.S. Ahlawat vs. State of Haryana 1 , wherein it wa s held that the C ourt canot impose a punishment which is not provided under the Statute. Another limb of argument is that the punishment is imposed on the prospective students rather than in on the Institute, as the same takes away the rights of the prosp ective students who wil be aplying a year later i.e. , 2023 - 24, and who may be entitled to gain admision in MQ on the basis of high score in CBSE examination without any oportunity of being heard and for no fault of theirs.

1 (20) 1 SC 278

8 of

16.

Lastly, it was submited that the Apelants had complied with al interim orders pased by the Court, including those dated

08.09.202, 16.09.202, 28.09.202, 17.10.202 and 20.10.202 , and that no instance of defiance or disregard can be atributed to them . CONTENTIONS OF THE R ESPONDENT NOS. 1 &

17.

Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submited that the Circular dated 2.09.202 was isued by the Directorate of Higher Education, GNCTD , with the prior aproval of the then Hon'ble Minister of Higher Education/ D eputy Chi ef Minister of Delhi . The object of the said Circular was to introduce transparency, clarity and eficiency in the admisions against Management Quota seats in private institutions afiliated with GSIP University , in conformity with the Act and the Rules.

18.

It was further submited that by Order dated 05.05.201,

University was apointed as the Designated Agency for conducting

admisions and counseling in the self - financing Institutions afiliated to it. Acord ingly, R espondent No. 2 / Directorate of Higher Education , GNCTD has limited role once the designated authority is apointed, and therefore the answering respondents are not in a position to coment upon the maner in which the admision proces was undertaken by the Apelants.

CONTENTIONS OF T HE RESPONDENT NO. 3

19.

Lea rned counsel for Respondent No. 3 / GSIP University suported the Impugned Order and submited that the Apelants had

9 of

clearly flouted the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, as noted in detail by the learned Sin gle Judge. It was argued that despite repeated directions, the Apelants chose to folow their own admision schedule and procedure, thereby undermining the uniformity and transparency sought to be achieved through the Circulars isued by Directorate of H igher Education , GNCTD and the

University.

20.

It was further contended that once the Directorate of Higher Education , GNCTD had mandated creation of an online portal, the University was bound to operationalise the same in the larger public int erest, so that al aplicants had equal aces to information. Consolidated merit lists were acordingly published, but the Apelants disregarded these and proceded with counseling on their own terms, thereby creating scope for arbitrarines and exclusi on of meritorious candidates.

21.

Counsel for the University emphasised that the penalty imposed – reducing the Management Quota seats of MSIT to nil for the academic sesion 2023 œ24 – is a corective measure intended to ensure compliance in future a nd to deter other afiliated institutions from adopting similar practices. It was submited that the punishment is not arbitrary, as it directly adreses the nature of the violation, and is proportionate to the gravity of non - compliance.

FINDINGS & ANALYS IS

2 2 . After considering the submisions advanced by learned counsel

for the parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record , the

of

isue that survives for determination is confined to the corectnes of the direction contained in Para graph No. of the Impugned Order, whereby the learned Single Judge, instead of canceling

the admisions made in the Academic Sesion 202 œ23 , imposed the penalty of reducing the Management Quota seats of the Apelant œ MSIT to nil for the suceding Academic Sesion 2023 œ24. Para graph

thereof reads as under:

—183. Hence, instead of treating the admisions made in the Academic

Sesion 202 - 2023 as nul and void, the 10% Management Quota

Seats of the MSIT for the Academic Sesion 2023 - 2024 stands reduced to Nil, mea ning thereby that the 10% Management Quota Seats shal be filed up by the designated authority as per the procedure to be folowed for filing up the remaining 90% seats for the Academic Sesion 2023 - 2024. Any advertisement, already isued by MSIT, for

ad miting students against the 10% Management Quota Seats stands canceled. " 2 3 . The l earned Single Judge held that the Apelant s failed to ensure transparency and compliance with the procedure mandated under the Act and the Rules, and the aplicable circul ars. The Court noted that the window provided by MSIT for aplications was narower than the minimum time contemplated under Rule 8 of the Rules , and that the Apelants proceded with counseling despite the subsistence of various interim directions dated

08.09.202,

16.09.202, 17.10.202 and 20.10.202.

2 4 . From the record, i t is evident that the Apelants conducted admisions in October 202 without aligning their proces with the consolidated lists and online portal framework introduced by the U niversity pursuant to the circulars dated 2.09.202 and

27.09.202. The learned Single Judge, in para graph s 14 œ145 of the

of

Impugned Order, specifically recor dated 26.08.202 alowed barely two weks for submision of aplica tion forms, contrary to the statutory mandate of granting a minimum of 18 days under Rule 8(2)(a) , thereby undermining equal oportunity to prospective candidates.

25.

Paragraph Nos. œ145 of the Impugned Order read as under:

—14. The fourth question i s regarding the admision made by MSIT

for the Academic Sesion 202 - 2023 against the Management Quota

of 10% seats.

¶145According to MSIT"s own stand, it dated

26.08.2022 in a "Daily English' newsp Daily Hindi ' newspape r. The last date for submision of aplication was prescribed

to be 12.09.202. The advertisement expresed that the aplication

forms were available in the ofice of the institute upto 29.08.202. The

advertisement published in "The Statesman ' dated 26.08 .202 i.e., the

English Daily reads as under: - —ADMISSION NOTICE FOR MANAGEMENT QUO SEATS

In terms of Directorate of Higher Education/Govt. of NCT of | Delhi Notifications regarding filing up of 10% Management Quota Seats, aplications are invited in th e form available in the ofices of the Institutes upto 29.08.202 betwen 10.0 a.m. to 1.0 p.m. The last date for submision of aplication wil be 12.09.202 upto 1.0 p.m. The Counseling wil take place in the premises of the Institutes on a date and t ime to be notified on the Institutes website with respect to the folowing courses:

Maharaja Surajmal Institute.:

• BBA (Gen.), BBA(B&I), BCA,B.Com. ( œ 1st and 2nd

Shifts, B.Ed., MBA, BA - LB and BA - LB

Maharaja Surajmal Institute of Technology:

• B. Te ch. (IT), (CSE), (ECE) œ 1st and 2nd Shift, B. Tech.

(E) - 1st Shift and B. Tech. (Lateral E " 2 6 . During the pendency of the present Ap peal, an aplication filed by the Apelants was disposed of on 14.06.2023 whereby this Court

of

permited the Apel ant s to fil the Management Quota seats for A cademic Sesion 2023 œ24, subject to the condition that in the event of dismisal of the apeal, such quota would stand forfeited for the subsequent year. The University has acordingly not permited MSIT t o exercise the Management Quota for the 2024 œ25 sesion.

The said order dated 14.06.2023 reads as under : —1. This is an aplication seking direction to the respondents not to include 10% management quota seats in the counseling for 90% general seats and alow the apelant to conduct the admision proces against those management quota seats.

¶2Isue notice. Ms. Sahani, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 acepts notice and oposes the aplication.

¶3Mr. Tripathi, learned standing counsel has no object ion to the prayers made in the aplication.

¶4Mr. Mital, learned senior counsel states that he may be permited to fil the 10% management quota seats for this academic sesion and in case the LPA is disalowed, he wil forgo his 10% management seats for the subsequent academic year. He shal file an afidavit to this efect.

¶5Our atention has ben drawn to para 29 of the impugned order which reads as under:

"29. During the course of argument, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent - NCT of Delhi takes a categorical stand that the Circular dated 2.09.202 is prospective in nature and, therefore, in Clause (i) of the Circular the word 'prospective' has ben consciously mentioned. He also takes the categorical stand that the Circular would be made aplic able once the University creates a portal. Acording to him, no portal has ben created by the University for the Academic Sesion 202 - 2023. He further submits that the University has deviated from the Circular dated 2.09.202 while isuing the folow up

Circular dated 27.09.202. Acording to him, no registrations were intended to be done at the University level."

¶6A perusal of the order shows that prima facie the circular was not

aplicable to the apelant, pursuant to which the apelant has ben

pe nalised. Hence, it is directed that the apelant shal be permited to fil the 10% management quota seats for this academic sesion and in

of

case the LPA is disalowed, he wil forgo his 10% management seats for the subsequent academic year.

¶7Respondent No. 3 is at liberty to file an aplication seking modification of the order before the Roster bench.

¶8List on

03.07.2023 before Roster bench for clarification/modification of the order, if so required. " 2 7 . On 07.07.2025, an interim order was pased res training the diversion of Management Quota seats to the General Quota until further directions. The same reads as under : —1. List the matter for hearing on 05.

¶2The Management Quota seats shal not be diverted to the General Quota sea ts til the next date of hearing.

¶3The date of 25.08.2025, stands canc

2 8 . It may be noted that the Apelants placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment dated 04.08.2023 in LPA No. 563/2023

captioned Vivekanand Profesional Institute v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi , wherein the Court observed that the order dated 2.09.202 isued by the Directorate of Higher Education, GNCTD had not ben shown to have ben isued by a competent authority and that, consequently, any action taken pursuant thereto woul d be without jurisdiction. Reliance was also placed on the decision dated

31.08.2023 in LPA No. 482/2023 captioned Norakshi Dahiya v. GSIP University , where the Division Bench reiterated the view that the circulars dated 2.09.202, 27.09.202, and 14.10 .202 could not be presed into service so as to defeat admisions that had already comenced.

. However, these observations canot advance the case of the present Apelants, inasmuch as the University itself, by a

of

contemporaneous circular dated 2

2.09.202, reiterated and adopted the impugned directions, and the subsequent Division Bench rulings have also emphasized the necesity of ensuring transparency in the management quota admisions by requiring compliance with the procedure under the Act and Rule s. 3 0 . Although this Court entertains some reservations regarding the corectnes of the finding of the learned Single Judge as to the competence of the Director to isue the circular dated 2.09.202, the isue has since ben rendered academic . This is because the University, by a subsequent circular of the same date (Anexure P - 9), reiterated those directions, which stand upheld in LPA Nos. 563 and 482 of 2023.

3 1 . Further, with efect from 13.04.2023, an Admision Regulatory Comite has ben duly constituted. By virtue of the creation of this statutory body, the Comite contemplated under the circular dated

2.09.202 stands subsumed and no longer retains present relevance . 3 2 . The Appellants' argument that th

admision proces mid - session, and that —the ru be changed midway," does not persu principle is wel - setled, it canot be invoked to justify non - compliance with statutory rules and binding judicial direct ions. The record discloses that the Apelants not only curtailed the minimum period prescribed under Rule 8(2)

(a) of the Rules , but also proceded with counseling in disregard of subsisting interim orders of this Court. The contention that no unfair prac tice has ben established, and

of

that no punishment is prescribed in the Act or the Rules, is equaly untenable.

3 3 . On the contrary, learned counsel for the Respondent s , has rightly pointed out, Rule 8(2)(a) notice, which was admitedly not complied with. Further, Rule 8 stipulates that al admisions to the M anagement Q uota shal remain provisional, subject to ratification by the designated agency. The Appellants' unilateral process, co provis ions, canot be countenanced . Rule 8 is extracted as under:

—8. Alotment of seats . - (1) Alotment of seats in an un - aided profesional colege or institution shal be made colege or institution - wise for each course.

(2) Every institution other than a m inority institution, shal provide for seats in respect of management quota, wards of defence personel, persons with disability and others in the maner as described below : -

(a) Management Quota. - (i) The Chairman or Secretary of the highest management b ody of the institution shal furnish an afidavit to the designated agency, mentioning therein that they have folowed the procedure laid down in the Act and these rules in a transparent maner and that they have done so without any prejudice or undue favo ur. Such an afidavit shal acompany the list of sucesful candidates under management quota, to be lodged with the University in the maner laid down in sub - clause (vi).

(i) The institution shal advertise the admision notice for management quota s eats in at least two leading daily newspapers, one in Hindi and the other in English in adition to displaying the same on the institution's website and the ins conspicuous place. The admision notice shal be displayed at least a fortnight before the last date for closing of admision for the concerned course in the University and shal include therein information necesary for the students seking admision to management quota seats. The admision notice shal include the rein the place from which admision forms wil be available, the date, time and maner for submision of completed aplications and the schedule for various admision proceses and counseling. Prospective aplicants shal be given a period of at least eig hten

of

days to aply for seats under the management quota, in the aforementioned maner.

(i) While calculating the management seats, fraction les than 0.7 shal be ignored and above that converted into one ful seat.

(iv) Based on the agregate marks o btained by qualified aplicants at the qualifying examination, the institution concerned shal prepare and display the rank ordered merit list of such aplicants on the institution's website and notice board the institution, within two days of the closing date for receipt of the management quota aplications. The criteria for rank ordering of applicants with a tie in the qualifyin shal be the same as those laid down in the admision brochure or as laid down by the designated authority.

(v) Based on the merit list so drawn up, the institution concerned shal conduct admision counseling for alotment of branches/courses to qualified aplicants within a period of thre days of drawing up of the me rit list of qualified management quota aplicants. Such admision counseling wil, however, be subject to the condition that there shal not be more than two rounds of counseling. The list of aplicants who wil be caled for a given round of admision cou nseling shal be displayed on the institution's websit conspicuous place.

(vi) Folowing the conduct of admision counseling, the list of aplicants admited to the management quota seats made on the basis of the merit list dr awn up in the aforementioned maner and the balance of the management quota seats in each course shal be published at the end of each round of counseling on the website of the institution as wel as that of the designated agency. A copy of such list shal be displayed on the notice board of the designated agency as wel as that of the institution, kept at a conspicuous place for the information of the candidates and others. The list of the candidates being caled for the first round of counseling shal be displayed in the aforementioned maner along with the merit list, indicating therein the date, time and place at which the counseling wil be held. The date, time and place of the second round of counseling wil be displayed along with the list of candidat es admited in the first round of counseling:

Provided that the second round of counseling shal comence only twelve hours after publication of the list of aplicants admited in the first round of counseling and the discipline/course - wise balance of sea ts. (vi) The last date to fil up the management quota seats wil be nine calendar days after the last date for regular admisions in the University and the concerned course

of

(vi) Al admisions made to the management quota seats shal be provisional an d wil ned ratification by the designated agency, which wil convey its decision within a day of being informed by the institution of the list of sucesful candidates and the basis of their selection as per procedure mentioned herein before.

(ix) The af iliated institutions shal not be authorized to admit candidates against the management quota seats after the cut - of date fixed as mentioned in sub - clause (vi) above.

1 of * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %