Sandeep Kumar v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. JULY 29, 2015 "gsr" (corrected and released on 22nd August, 2015)

*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) 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. 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 sam