TANVI YADAV Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in both the petitions claim to be belonging to OBC Category. THEy applied for admission in University of Delhi in LL.B and M.Sc. (Chemistry) course respectively in the academic year 2010-11. THEy were however not admitted as per the Admission Policy of the respondent University qua OBCs. THE same Admission Policy, as is being followed by the respondent University qua OBCs, was also being followed by the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). This Court vide judgment dated 7th September, 2010 in WP(C) No.4857/2007 titled Apurva Vs. Union of India held the said Policy to be bad. THE petitioners, contending that they have been denied admission for the reason of the respondent University following the policy not approved of by this Court in Apurva (supra), and that else they would have been entitled to admission, have filed the present petitions for scrapping the entire admission procedure followed by the University and for directing afresh admissions in consonance with what has been approved by this Court in Apurva.

(2.) THE petitions came up before this Court on 5th October, 2010 and 8th October, 2010 respectively. On those very dates, it was observed that even if finding the procedure followed by the respondent University to be flawed, since admission of students more than the prescribed capacity tends to put unnecessary stress on infrastructure in the College / Institution and further since the academic session had already begun, no relief could be granted to the petitioners. THE counsel for the petitioners however contended that some seats were still lying vacant in each of the courses and in the circumstances, notice of the petitions was issued and the counsel for the respondent University asked to take instructions.

(3.) THE counsel for the respondent University has contended that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Ashoka Kumar Thakur Vs. Union of India (2008) 6 SCC 1 had left it to the Government to lay down the procedure for admission to the seats reserved for OBCs under the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006. He contends that the Government in pursuance to the same brought out an Office Memorandum dated 17th October, 2008 and the University has abided by the same. He has in this regard drawn attention to paras 535, 629 and 645 of the judgment in Ashoka Kumar Thakur (supra). He has further contended that the view in the judgment of Dalveer Bhandari J. in Ashoka Kumar Thakur was subsequently ratified by all the other Honble Judges of the Constitution Bench, in P.V. Indiresan Vs. Union of India (2009) 7 SCC 300 and thus is now the view of the Constitution Bench. It is further the contention that the distinction between qualifying marks and cut off was noted in para 408 of the judgment in Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 and of which the Constitution Bench in Ashoka Kumar Thakur was fully seized. It is thus argued that the use of expression "cut off" in Ashoka Kumar Thakur is distinct from qualifying marks as in the context of para 408 of the judgment in Indra Sawhney (supra).