SALMA KHAN Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks directions to direct the Respondents to grant her admission in the LLB Ist year course in the OBC category against the vacant 50 seats of LLB Session 2011-12.

(2.) The brief background of facts which has led to the filing of the present petition is that the Petitioner had secured 209 marks in the LLB entrance test and in the OBC category her rank was 444. It is the case of the Petitioner that she was called to participate in the counseling on 13.7.2011 as per her rank but was not given admission on that day despite her rank being called but she was given an 'option form' to fill her choice out of the three centers in the faculty of law. It is also the case of the Petitioner that in fact the Petitioner was provisionally admitted on 13.7.2011 but she was not granted final admission as the matter regarding the criteria for filling up the quota of 27% reservation for the OBC category was pending consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is also the case of the Petitioner that all the OBC candidates were required to appear on 20.7.2011 before the Respondent Faculty of Law and when the Petitioner had appeared on 20.7.2011 then she was told that the Respondent was still awaiting the final decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of P.V. Indiresan v. Union of India, 2011 10 JT 415 Civil Appeal No. 7084/2011, and as and when the Hon'ble Apex Court decides the matter, the Petitioner would be informed to seek admission as per her rank. It is further the case of the Petitioner that she had visited the Respondent faculty on 1.8.2011 and 12.8.2011 when again she was told that the matter before the Apex Court was still pending consideration. The Petitioner thereafter went to her parental home Etah, Uttar Pradesh on 13.8.2011 and remained busy to attend the marriage of her real sister which was scheduled for 4.9.2011 and when she returned back to Delhi on 8.9.2011 and visited the office of the Respondent, then she came to know that the Respondent had already conducted open house counseling on 20.8.2011 and in the said counseling they had given admissions to all those OBC candidates who had appeared on that day. It is also the case of the Petitioner that the last candidate who was granted admission in the OBC category had secured 56 marks in the entrance examination with the rank of 1017 in the OBC category, but the Petitioner whose rank was 444 was denied admission for no fault on her part as she was never informed about the said open house counseling through any means.

(3.) Mr. MJS Rupal, Learned Counsel for the Respondent University vehemently opposes the present petition. Counsel on instructions submits that the Petitioner herself is to be blamed for not participating in the counseling which was held on 20.8.2011 for the OBC candidates. Counsel also submits that in fact the Petitioner was never granted admission on 13.7.2011 as on that day the rank of the Petitioner was much below than the last candidate who was granted admission on that day in the OBC category. Counsel also submits that on 13.7.2011 the candidates securing rank in the OBC category merit list from 301 to 450 were required to attend counseling and the last candidate admitted on that day from the OBC category had secured 236 marks in the entrance test and rank 330. Counsel further submits that the said criteria was adopted in terms of the Delhi High Court interim order in operation on that day requiring giving of 10% weightage to the OBC candidates from the maximum marks in the entrance test and the maximum marks in the entrance test were 700 marks. Counsel thus submits that adopting the said criteria, the candidates belonging to the OBC category were given advantage of 70 marks and therefore those candidates who had secured upto 236 marks were provisionally admitted against OBC reserved seats in the LLB first year course. Counsel further submits that so far the candidates in the merit list of OBC category beyond rank 331 upto 450 were concerned, they were required to fill up their option forms so as to participate in the next counseling, which as per the brochure was scheduled for 20.7.2011. Counsel submits that on 20.7.2011 the counseling in fact was not held in view of the pendency of the matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.V. Indiresan v. Union of India, 2011 10 JT 415. Counsel also submits that thereafter the counseling for OBC candidates was held on 20.8.2011 after the decision of the Apex Court in the aforesaid matter on 18.8.2011, wherein the Apex Court took a view that all eligible OBC candidates have to be given admission and if the seats still remain vacant then such OBC seats will be converted to the general category. The contention of the counsel for the Respondent is that through the notice dated 12.8.2011, the counseling was duly notified through the notice board, and through the website as well, and the Petitioner although was eligible to participate in the said counseling which was held on 20.8.2011, but she did not choose to participate in the said counseling due to her personal reasons and for which the Respondent cannot be blamed. Referring to Instruction No. 10 which forms part of the Bulletin of Information issued by the Faculty of Law, counsel submits that the Respondent University was not obligated to send individual communication to each and every candidate inviting them to participate in the counseling. Counsel also submits that the academic session for the first year has already begun from 1.8.2011 and the classes of the first semester will close on 20.11.2011, and now the Petitioner cannot be granted midstream admission.