IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ADMISSION MATTER Date of the decision: November 13, 2006 W.P.(C).No.13811/2006 Ms.Nishtha Jain (Minor)... PETITIONER Through: Mr.B.R. Sharma, Advocate. VERSUS University of Delhi & Others... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Mohinder J.S. Rupal with Ms.Rashmi Rai, Advocates for respondent No.1. Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr.Ahsish Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3. ANIL KUMAR, J. Rule. 1. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. Learned counsel for the parties contended that no further affidavits are to be filed on behalf of parties. 2. The petitioner has sought a writ against the respondents, University of Delhi and Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology to call the petitioner for counselling for admission on 31st August, 2006 or at any other dated as directed by the Court. 3. Brief facts to comprehend the controversies are that the petitioner applied for Combined Entrance Examination 2006 held by respondent No.2 for admission to its institute and her merit rank in the written test was 1329. 4. As per the prospectus 2006-07 of respondents providing schedule of counselling and admission, the counselling had to commence from 12th July, 2006. The counselling was to be done at NSIT Auditorium, Azad Hind Fauj Marg, Sector 3, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 at 10.30 am unless specified otherwise. Different dates were given for counselling from 12th July, 2006.
5. Instructions for candidates categorically stipulated that only one chance for counselling on the dates as notified in the prospects will be given to the candidates and they would be called one by one according to their rank in CEE 2006 from amongst those present at the time and the date as specified in Section 4.6 of the prospectus. The candidates were required to pay fee immediately to confirm his/her admission. The relevant instructions for candidates are as under:- The procedure for admission to B.E. Courses in Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology and Delhi College of Engineering for the year 2006 batch will be as follows: Candidates are required to come for admission as per schedule given later in Section 4.5 provided that they have submitted the application and have the rank as specified in the schedule. The list of applicants will be displayed on the Notice Boards. No letters calling the candidates for admission will be issued. the candidates are required to present themselves as per the schedule in Section 4.6 according to the rank in CEE-2006. Only those candidates who have submitted Application for admission in the prescribed form in time and have the rank as specified, will be considered for admission. Only once chance for counselling as notified in the Prospecturs will be given to the candidates. The candidates will be called one by one according to their Rank in CEE- 2006 from amongst those present at the time and date as specified in Sectin 4.6. they will be formed of the Branch offered to them as per their preference indicated by them in Application Form and their rank in CEE-2006 and asked to present documents. After verification, the originals and Xerox copies will be retained by the Chairman, Admission Committee and an Admission Slip will be issued. The candidate must pay the fees immediately to confirm his/her admission. If a candidate does not report for admission on the scheduled date at the specified time either in person or through his/her nominee for counselling as per his/her CEE-Rank on the notified dates(s) and/or refuses the offer of admission depending upon the availability of seats at the time of counselling or if a seat is offered in the Branch which may or may not be his/her first preference and he/she refuses to accept the same or he/she does not pay the fees on the day of admission, He/she shall forfeit his/her claim for admission to B.E. Programme during the said year. The Original Certified of the admitted candidate will be returned after Dec.2006 or on withdrawal from the Institute/College whichever is earlier." 6. Since the merit rank of the petitioner was 1329, she had to appear on 25th July, 2006 at 10.30 am for counselling. The time and place of counselling as indicated in the prospectus for the petitioner is as under:- "25.07.2006: The candidates of DG having ranks (Tuesday) 1251 to 1600 in CEE-2006 are to report 10.30 A.M. for counselling if seats available.
7. The prospectus for admission to CEE 2006 also stipulated that if the vacancy persisted after the dates of counselling as given, candidates next in the merit list will have to report for counselling for all categories on 18th August, 2006 and finally on 31st August, 2006. The relevant stipulation regarding this in the prospect is as under:- "If the vacancy still persists, candidates next in the merit list to report for counselling, for all categories on 18.08.2006 (Friday) and finally on 31.8.2006 (Thursday). Only one chance for counselling as notified in the prospectus will be given to the candidates. Merely by calling the candidates for counselling under categories upto a specified rank does not guarantee them admission under any of the B.E. programmes. The candidates will be considered for admission according to merit if the vacancies still persist. A student who has been admitted but has not registered or failed to attend the classes, may submit an application through his/her parent/guardian explaining the reasons. Director/principal may defer the cancellation of his/her seat if he is satisfied with the explanation. No admission will be made after 31.08.2006." 8. According to the petitioner, respondent No.2 stopped counselling on 24th July, 2006 after the rank 1101 as there was no vacancy and this information was also available on the internet as no further seats were available. The petitioner asserted that consequently need to go for counselling on 25th July, 2006 was not there, as per the schedule of counselling on 25th July, 2006, the date for counselling for merit rank holders from 1251 to 1600 as the merit rank of the petitioner was 1329. 9. The petitioner further contended that due to reservation issue, respondent No.3 increased the vacancy by 60 seats and as after 25th July, 2006, the remaining vacancies had to be filled from all categories on 18th August, 2006, therefore, she went for counselling, however, she was not allowed entry into counselling hall and she was refused entry on the ground that the seats are to be filled on the basis of list which was prepared from the candidates who had appeared on 24th July, 2006 and 25th July, 2006. 10. The writ petition is contested by respondent No.2 who filed a counter affidavit of Shri Ranjit Singh, Director, Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology, New Delhi contending that two engineering colleges with the University of Delhi are Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology, respondent No.2, and Delhi College of Engineering. Admission to these colleges are made by the Faculty of Technology, University of Delhi, through the written test which is conducted by the University of Delhi. Relying on Clause 1.7A of the prospectus of Combined Entrance Examination 2006-07, it was asserted that respondent No.2 had to make admission for both institutions.
11. Relying on clause 4 of the prospectus, it was contended that a candidate who did not report for admission on the selected date, as the specified, in person or through his/her nominee for counselling as per his/her rank in CEE-2006 and who refused the offer of admission depending upon the availability of seats at the time of counselling or if a seat which was offered to the candidate was not as per the candidates' first preference and he refused to accept the same or did not pay the fee on the day of admission, such a candidate shall forfeit his claim for admission to B.E. Programme during the said programme. 12. Regarding petitioner it was pleaded that as she had secured the rank of 1329, she had to come for counselling on 25th July, 2006 at 10.30 A.M. either in person or through her nominee and she had not come on 25th July, 2006 and therefore she forfeited her right to claim admission to B.E. course for the Session 2006-2007. 13. The respondents categorically contended that all the seats available were offered to the candidates by 21st July, 2006, however, all the seats were not filled. As per rules framed by Delhi University and the guidelines in this regard and an upgraded list was to be displayed on 24th July, 2006 for candidates securing ranks from 1001 to 1250 who were required to attend the counselling for marking their attendance on 24th July, 2006 and those having the ranks from 1251 to 1600 on 25th July, 2006 so that they could be considered for admission in order of merit against withdrawal etc. The name of all candidates having rank from 1251 to 1600 for Delhi region who appeared on 25th July, 2006 for counselling were noted and residual seats were filled from these candidates and the last admission was done on 31st August, 2006 of a candidate having a rank of 1479 in the general category. 14. According to respondents, out of merit list prepared in NSIT for admission, only those candidates were considered, who had appeared for counselling and marked their attendance on the dates of counselling and not a single candidate who failed to appear for counselling and mark his attendance was given admission in spite of better ranking and consequently petitioner is not entitled for admission. 15. Refuting the allegation of the petitioner that on the official website it was put up that no seats were available, it was contended that no such information was to be put up on the official website that all the seats have been filled. It was, however, stated that admission to DG category to which the petitioner belonging were completed on 21st July, 2006 and the last candidate who was offered admission had a rank of 893. Since there would have been drop outs of the candidates who had not deposited the fee, the remaining candidates were required to attend the counselling for marking their attendance in accordance with the rank secured by them as per the schedule given in the prospectus and as the petitioner had a rank of 1329, she was required to attend counselling on 25th July, 2006. As the petitioner did not appear for counselling on 25th July, 2006 as per the procedure and the directions given, she forfeited her right and, therefore, she could not be considered for admission on 18th August, 2006 and 31st August, 2006 also. Respondents also produced the attendance list showing substantial number of candidates who appeared
on 25th July, 2006 having ranks between 1251 to 1600. An additional affidavit dated 22nd September, 2006 was also filed on behalf of respondent No.2 stating that the last date for admission in B.E. Course was 31st August, 2006 and after that date no admission has been allowed except with the directions of the Court and no seats falling vacant after 31st August, 2006 have been filled and reliance was placed on Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh, (2002) 7 SCC 258 of the Supreme Court that mid-session admissions are not to be allowed and since the University had framed the schedule to close admission on 31st August, 2006, no admission be granted after 31st August, 2006. 16. The petition was also opposed by University of Delhi and an affidavit of Shri A.K. Dubey, Registrar, was filed who also relied on the instructions for candidates and contended that the process of admission to B.E. course was to be done centrally by respondent No.2 as per rules. As the petitioner failed to appear on 25th July, 2006, she had forfeited her right for admission and consequently the petitioner is not entitled for admission. 17. Yet another affidavit dated 19th October, 2006 was filed by respondent No.2 stating that prospectus rule 3.8 clearly explains the procedure for admission and the rankwise date for counselling was given so that the seats available till that date could be filled up. Regarding the list prepared in early hours of 31st August, 2006, it was stated that the list was displayed in afternoon of 31st August, 2006 and was made for the period till the mid-night. On 1st September, 2006, the final list of students who were given admission was displayed was valid only uptill 31st August, 2006. It was categorically asserted that no candidate in the list had been given admission on 1st September, 2006 even if any seat had fallen vacant on that date. Learned counsel for respondents, Mrs. Ahlawat, also produced the admission list of all the candidates till 31st August, 2006. 18. The petitioner filed a rejoinder refuting the averments made by the respondents in their counter affidavit and stated that since the admission was closed on 21st July, 2006, there was no need for the petitioner to appear for counselling on 25th July, 2006 as it was very clearly written in the schedule of counselling and admission, in the prospectus, and the petitioner, therefore, did not go for counselling on 25th July, 2006 as no seat was available. As the remaining vacancies were to be filled on 18th August, 2006 and 31st August, 2006, therefore, she went on 18th August, 2006 and 31st August, 2006, however, she had not been given admission and reliance was also placed on list of seven candidates having the ranking of 1487 to 1595 which was displayed on 31st August, 2006. 19. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the petition, counter affidavits and documents filed and relied on by the parties. The basis of the petitioner's plea is that since all the seats were filled up to the rank of 893 by 21st July, 2006, therefore, she was not required to appear on 25th July, 2006. This plea is based on the premise that all the candidates who were offered admission till 21st July, 2006 had accepted the admission according to their choice even if it was not according to their first preference and had deposited the fee on the same day of admission and the right of none of the candidates were forfeited for non-compliance of the requirements as
stipulated in the rules and instructions for candidates which have been detailed hereinabove. 20. In support of her plea that she did not appear on 25th July, 2006 as all the seats were filled by 21st July, 2006, it is also contended by the petitioner that the said information was put up on the website of the respondents. This fact has been categorically denied by the respondents that the information about filling up of the seats was put on the website. The plea taken by the petitioner that this information was put up by the respondent is slightly vague in as much as the petitioner has not disclosed as to where she saw this alleged information on the website. Since the petitioner was not to appear on the basis of this information about the filling of all the seats, on 25th July, 2006, she ought to have taken the printout of said information on the website. The petitioner has not disclosed whether she has a computer and internet connection at home or that she went to a house or office of a friend or she access the website of the respondents from a cyber cafe. In the circumstances, in the totality of facts it is not believable that the alleged information about filling all the seats by the respondents was put up by them on their website. 21. Perusal of the prospectus and the instructions for the candidates does not disclose that the respondents had to put up such an information about the filling up of all the seats on the website. Though the respondents have deposed in their affidavits that the admission to both institutions was completed on 21st July, 2006, however, on reading of the affidavits of the respondents, it is apparent that what is stated is that all the seats were offered to the candidates by 21st July, 2006. When the respondents have stated that the admission was completed on 21st July, 2006, they have contended that the seats were offered to the candidates and those candidates who had not completed the formalities by 21st July, 2006 despite admission being offered to them or who did not present the documents and got them verified and whose right for admission was forfeited or whose seats were thus not filled, these seats which were offered and which did not get filled, were to be offered to other candidates on subsequent dates. 22. From the admission list produced by respondents, it is apparent that all the students who were offered admissions by 21st July, 2006 had not got themselves admitted and number of seats remained vacant as all the students whom the seats were offered by 21st July, 2006 either did not deposit the fee or did not present the documents or for other reasons, forfeited their right for admission. Such seats were to be offered to the remaining candidates on 24th July and 25th July, 2006. 23. The seats which remained vacant on account of all the candidates who were offered admission by 21st July, 2006 not getting admission, were to be offered to the candidates on 24th July, 2006, however, the respondents instead of offering the admission to all those candidates who appeared on 24th July, 2006 recorded their presence and instead of waiting for them to complete their formalities and getting the admission formally against the vacant seats and again offering the seats to the candidates who had to appear on 25th July, 2006, marked the presence of such candidates who appeared on 24th July, 2006 and therefore on 25th July, 2006.
24. In the circumstances, the plea of the petitioner that since there was no seats, therefore, she was not liable to come on 25th July, 2006 cannot be accepted. Considering the number of students, about 132, who had appeared for counselling on 25th July, 2006, the plea of the counsel for the petitioner that some of the students were going for counselling without any rational, cannot be accepted and is contrary to the procedure prescribed in detail by the respondents. Despite admission offered against all the available seats, the petitioner was liable to appear on the date for his counselling which was 25th July, 2006 as she could not ascertain without coming for counseling whether all the candidates who were offered admission had joined or not. Mere offering of admission to candidates according to their merit ranking was not filling the seats unless such candidates who were offered seats actually showed their original certificates and deposited their fees. The petitioner therefore, can not rely on the statement of the respondents that all the seats were offered by 21st July, 2006 and therefore the inference that since all the seats had been offered and must had been filled and no more seats remained vacant, could not be drawn by the petitioner. 25. The residual seats which were to be filled on 18th August, 2006 and 31st August, 2006 were those seats which would have remained vacant after offering the seats to the candidates who appeared on 24th July, 2006 and 25th July, 2006. The prospectus categorically stipulated that if a candidate will not appear on the date for which his counselling was fixed, will forfeit his/her right for admission and consequently those candidates who did not appear, including petitioner, on 25th July, 2006 forfeited their right for admission and, therefore, the respondents were justified in not offering the seats to those candidates who did not appear on 24th July, 2006 and 25th July, 2006 for counselling. 26. The plea of the petitioner that the fact about filling up of the seats was put up on the website of the respondents has been disbelieved and consequently there was no justification for the petitioner not to appear for counselling on 25th July, 2006. In case a candidates had forfeited his right for admission, there is no provision for admitting such a student. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled for admission to the residual seats on 18th August, 2006 and 31st August, 2006 and the action of the respondents not to admit the petitioner can not be faulted. The Supreme Court had held in Arvind Kumar Kankane vs State of U.P, (2001) 8 SCC 355 that once the academic course commences the same is to be completed within the fixed period and if the counseling goes on continuously for a long period it will upset the course of study. The observations made by the Supreme Court are as under: 3. Aggrieved by these directions, an appeal was preferred by the Director General of Medical Education and Training. The Division Bench, after considering the scheme of admission and conditions imposed therein and the decisions of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Veena Gupta (Dr) v. University of Delhi1 and of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Anil Jain v. Controller of Examinations2 held that any seat which is available and which has not been included in any of the three counsellings by mistake should be filled in, in order of merit from amongst the wait-listed candidates. Normally, when a seat is available, the same should be included in the initial counselling. If by
mistake a seat is not included in the initial counselling then the effect is that nobody opts for the same. If now the said seat is sought to be offered to all the candidates for counselling, the result would be that all the candidates who took part in the first counselling should be given a chance, in order of merit, to opt for the same seat. This will start a chain reaction and ultimately there will be one seat more, which would become available for the second counselling. There again a chain reaction will start leading to the third counselling. The effect of putting the seat back for counselling for all candidates would, therefore, be to upset the entire counselling which had already taken place. Prima facie though it appears to be somewhat unfair, there is no alternative, apart from leaving the seat unfilled, but to offer the said seat to the wait-listed candidates. It was also noticed that once the academic course commences the same will have to be completed within a period of three years and if the counselling goes on continuously for a long period then it may not be possible to fulfil that condition and thereby upset the course of study itself. On this basis, the Division Bench set aside the order made by the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal. It is against this order and connected matters that the present appeals are filed by special leave. 4. We have carefully examined the contentions put forth before the High Court and before us and we are of the view that the finding recorded by the Division Bench and the Delhi High Court in Dr Veena Gupta case1 and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Anil Jain case2 is in accordance with reason and stands the test of rationality. It is clear that once an option is exercised by a candidate on the basis of which he is allotted the subject and thereafter that candidate is allowed to participate in subsequent counselling and his seat becomes vacant, the process of counselling will be endless and, as apprehended by the High Court, it may not be possible to complete the academic course within the stipulated period. If once a candidate has failed to exercise his/her option to get admission in counselling and thereafter if that candidate is allowed to participate in subsequent counseling, the process of counseling will be endless and it may not be possible to complete the academic course within the stipulated period. Dealing with criteria and rules framed by the Admission Committee in 124(2005) DLT 166, Ajay Kumar Ramineni Vs. Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi and Another, a single Judge had held that the court cannot ignore the rules framed by the Admission Committee nor can it devise and enforce its own criterion pertaining to admission as these decisions must be left to the concerned academic body. In an appeal against the order of the single Judge, by order dated 7th December, 2005 in LPA No.2033/2005 in Ajay Kumar Ramineni Vs. IIT Delhi, t_e Division Bench had reiterated that in academic/education matters, courts should be reluctant to interfere and if two interpretations of a regulation framed by an academic body are possible, the court should accept the interpretation given by the said academic body. In this case, the Indian Institute of Technology had not taken into consideration the credits given to the candidates during summer course and court had declined to interfere with the decision of institute. 27. As there has to be a finality to the admissions and consequently the last date fixed by the respondents for granting admission to the courses of respondents has to be
accepted. The explanation of the respondent that the list which was put up on 31st August, 2006 was of those candidates who were granted admission on 31st August, 2006 and no admission has been made after 31st August, 2006 has to be accepted in the facts and circumstances. In Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh, (2002) 7 SCC 258, it was held that there is a necessity for specifically providing the time schedule for the course and fixing the period during which admissions can take place, making it clear that no admission can be granted after the scheduled date, which essentially should be the date for commencement of the course. 28. In the circumstances, the petitioner has failed to establish that she had a right to get admission after she forfeited the rights on account of her non-appearance on 25th July, 2006. In the circumstances, there is no ground to direct the respondents to call the petitioner for counselling and to admit her according to her merit ranking. 29. The writ petition is, therefore, without any merit and it is dismissed. SD./- November 13, 2006 ANIL KUMAR, J.