University of Delhi v. Sanwal Ram

order dated

10.3.2001 writ petitionsfiled by the respondentshave been allowed and a declaration has been granted that the respondentsare entitledto a confirmationof their provisional admission and thereby permit them to tal<e the ensuing semesterend term examinationas per rules.

¶2Issue pertainsto the admissionto the Bachelorof Law (LLB) course in the Universityof Delhi for the academic year 2010-11, eligibilitywhereof as per bulletin information issued by the appellant mandated that the candidate must have either a Graduate or a Post-Graduatedegree of any recognizedUniversityor equivalentdegree with at least 50% marks. Admission was as per merit obtained at an Entrance Te.st. Since by the date the resultsof the entranceexam were declared and admissions effected It was known to the University that quite a few final year results pertaining to Graduate or Post-Graduatecourses are not declared, those who successfullyclearedthe entranceexaminationwere given provisional admission subject to they securing the requisite 50% marksat the Graudate/Post-Graduatelevel. 3, Whereas respondentSanwal Ram was pursuing a BBA coursewith a Universityat Rajasthanand was to securea degree In the year 2010, respondent Varun Kapoor was pursuingaGraduatedegreecoursefrom aCollegeaffiliatedto the Universityof Delhi. Both cleared the EntranceTest and since the final result pertainingto the Graduatecourse which the two were undertaking had not been declared the University gave provisional admission and unfortunatelyfor LPANos.400/2011& 401/2011 '.ivi-2 H IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI the two when their results were declared, having failed in one subject each, both of them were placed in compartment and were permitted to take , a supplementary examination pertaining to the paper in question, which they took and successfully cleared, but by that time a date of significance had lapsed. The date was 31^^ August 2010 by which they had to submit the requisite documents pertaining to their eligibility and which meant that the two had to produce a final or a provisional degree issued by their respective University along with the mark-sheet evidencing that the two had acquired Graduate degree with at least 50% marks.

¶4- The University permitted both to continue attending classes, and raised the issue somewhere in the month' of December when the first semester end term examination was to be conducted and denied a right to both of them to sit at the examination. The University threatened to cancel their admission and the two were compelled to file the two writ petitions which have been allowed in their favour.

¶5- Whereas the respondents would urge before the learned Single Judge that having cleared the supplementary examination the result thereof would relate back to the date when the main result was declared as held by a DivisionBench of this Court in the judgment reported as AIR 2001 Delhi 28 Prashant Srivastava vs. CBSE. which decision followed and earlier decision dated

7.9.1999 in LPA No.385/1999 Neha Kattyar vs. CBSE and thus submitted that they would have to be deemed to'be treated as eligible by the requisite date i.e.

31.8.2010 by which date the result of the main examination held had been declared. Per contra, the University would urge .PANos.400/2011 & 401/2011 Page 3 of6 ()() WS IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI . i that as per the decision reported as 2004 (72) DRJ 428 Ankur Warn vs. UOIhe\c\tn the rnnt-rary

¶6The learned Single Judge has noted that the decisionin AnkurWahfs case is by a SingleJudge and whereas the two decisions relied upon by the respondentswere by a Division Bench. The learned SingleJudge has given a further reason, being that, the bulletin information issued by the Uiniversitydid not clearly state that those who-were awaiting resultswere requiredto clear the qualifyingexaminationat the first instance.

¶7There is merit in the plea sought to be urged by learned counsel for the University that ^'f a cut-off date is prescribedby which eligibilityhas to be secured, an eligibility secured at a later date would be inconsequential, but the argument ignores the fact that where law requires something deemed to have come into existence, one cannot boggledown the consequencethereofand whateverlogicallyflows from the deemed existenceof a thing having come into being, the same has to be treated as having come into being.

¶8In our opinionthe Universitynot having clarified,as observed by the learned SingleJudge, that eligibilitymust be acquired at the main examinationand not the supplementary, the alternativereasoning of the learned Single Judge merits acceptance. 9-If the University has any issue on the second reasoning, it is easily capable of being rectified inasmuch as the University can, in future, clearly stipulate in the bulletin informationthat eligibility,de-jure as also de-facto, has to be obtained by the cut-offdate and that those who are placed in LPANos.400/2011 & 401/2011 f. THE Off DELHI compartmentwould be treated as ineligible. Further, we see no reason why the Universityshould not scrutinizethe cases of provisionaladmissionsby the cut-offdate and bring an end to the issue the day next.

¶10Learned counsel for the appellants concedes that it is too late in the day for the Universityto fill up the two vacant seats if respondents are held ineligible candidates,on the gi'bund as urged by the University,notwithstandingthat both of them have cleared the supplementary examination and are deemed to be candidates having obtained Graduate degree at , par with the rest.

¶11Why should we not be situationalistJudges and not rationalistJudges? We think we should. It is not a case where wholly ineligible persons or persons who have obtained admission by dubious means would continue as students of the Universityof Delhi in the Facultyof Law. If we hold against the respondents,two seats would go abeg^ing,and this in our opinion would be contrary to public interest and thus the Gompulsion of the situation compels us to be situationalist Judges and uphold the view taken by the learnedSingleJudge.

¶12For the future years, the University of Delhi can certainly incorporate a clause in the bulletin information as observed by us in para 9 above.

¶13Both appeals are dismissed but without orders as to costs.

¶14CM No.8394/2011 and CM No.8395/2011 in LPA No.401/2011and CM No.8390/2011 and CM No.8391/2011 in LPA No.400/2011which exemption as prayed are allowed. CM No.8392/2011 in LPA No.400/2011 and CM No.8396/2011 in LPANos.400/2011 & 401/2011 ri:.. V. V-,. • • •'(••I THE HIGH C B¥I,T-TT: NEW DELHI .1 . .. n /i Vn/^ifirtlt LPA No.401/2011 which seek stay of the operation of the impugned judgment are dismissed as infructuous. MAY 04, 2011 dl< LPANos.400/2011& 401/2011 (PRADEEPNANDRAJOG) JUDGE (SURESH KAIT) JUDGE l_ -

•i * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 4'^ May. 2011 + LPA 401/2011 UNIVERSITY OF DELHI Petitioner Through: Mr.M.J.S.Rupal, Advocate with Mr.Aravind Varma, Advocate versus SANWAL RAM Respondent Through: Mr.S.C.Pathak, Advocate with Mr.R.R.Jangu, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. l.(Oral) For orders, see LPA No.400/2011. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (SURESH KAIT) JUDGE MAY 04, 2011 dk Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. f •1h • a-' -f',. •THE . . I: NEWm.LWir W THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 4^^ Mav. 2011 + LPA 400/2011 UNIVERSITYOF DELHI Petitioner Through: Mr.M.J.S.Rupal,Advocate with Mr.Aravind Varma, Advocate VARUN KAPUR Through: Versus Respondent Mr.J.P.Sengh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Manish Kumar and Mr.Dheeraj Sachdeva, Advocate LPA 401/2011 UNIVERSITYOF DELHI Petitioner Through: Mr.M.J.S.Rupal,Advocate with Mr.Aravind Varma, Advocate versus SANWAL RAM Respondent Through: Mr.S.C.Pathak, Advocate with , Mr.R.R.Jangu, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP MAiMDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KA!T ! 1. Whetherthe Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whetherthe judgmentshould be reportedin the Digest? LPANos.400/2011&401/2011 Page l of6 .00 p ^1 •the T-ITCHcourt of DELHI: NEW DELHI PRADEEPMANDRAIOG.I.(Oral) X, Vide impugned judgment and