Ggsip University v. Dhruv Singhal & Ors

MANMOHAN, J JANUARY 7, 2011 dk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: 19th November, 2010 % Judgment Pronounced on: 7th January, 2011 + LPA No.820/2010 GGSIP UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar with Mr. Sradhananda Mohapatra, Advs. versus DHRUV SINGHAL & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Swastik Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Swastik Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. Lalit Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.2. LPA No.822/2010 GGSIP UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar with Mr. Sradhananda Mohapatra, Advs. versus SHRISHTI CHANDOK & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Swastik Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Swastik Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. Lalit Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ In these intra-Court appeals preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, the challenge is to the composite order dated 18th October, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.6641/2010 and WP(C) No.6896/2010 and the common order dated 15th November, 2010 passed in R.P. No.459/2010 and R.P. No.457/2010. Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved, the facts in WP(C) No.6641/2010 are exposited herein. 2. The respondent No.1 to the present appeal invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India stating, inter alia, that he had appeared in the Common Entrance Test (CET) conducted by the appellant – University on 5th June, 2010 for admission to Engineering & B.Tech programmes in the Institutes / Colleges of the appellant - University as well as its affiliates. The respondent No.1 secured the rank of 15070 in the merit list. As per the admission brochure published by the appellant – University, the admission process was required to be completed by 30th September, 2010 but the second round of counselling for admission in the Respondent No.2, i.e., Maharaja Agarasen Institute of Technology (MAIT), an Institute / College affiliated to the University, commenced only on 13th September, 2010 and was stated to be continuing at the time of filing of the petition on 28th September, 2010. It was contended that certain colleges applied to the University for filling up the vacant seats even after the conclusion of the second counselling by 30th September, 2010. The respondent No.1 approached MAIT and was informed that there were still 11 vacant seats either on account of students who had not joined inspite of taking admission or on account of seats not filled up by the University. Despite the same, the University did not admit the respondent No.1 to the MAIT. In that backdrop, the writ petition was filed to issue an appropriate writ to the University to admit him to the B.Tech in MAIT in the academic year 2010-2011. When the matter was taken up on 29th September, 2010 by the learned Single Judge, a stand was put forth by the college that seats were vacant and a stance was set forth by the University that six seats of the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category were not put to counselling till then. It was also stated that as per the Rules, if the said seats remained vacant, they were to be offered next to the Scheduled Castes (SC) category candidates and if still some seats remained vacant, they were to be offered to the General category candidates. It was urged that in the General category candidates, the respondent No.1 was placed in the rank of 15070 and, hence, was unlikely to be admitted in that category. It was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that the University was considering counselling for ST/SC category on 30th September, 2010 being the last date for adm