DAKSHESH SHARMA Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR DELHI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to direct the respondent to grant him admission in MIB Course 2011- 2013 Batch in accordance with his merit position.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case relevant for deciding the present petition are that after having passed his 12th examination and B. Tech Course, the petitioner had appeared in CAT examination in the month of November 2010 and was declared successful by securing 95 percentile. After having qualified the said entrance examination the petitioner sought admission in MIB/MHROD in Delhi University in Department of Commerce and vide letter dated 10.3.2011, the Delhi School of Economics respondent No.2 informed the petitioner that based on his performance in the CAT test he was shortlisted to participate in a group discussion and interview for seeking admission in the said MIB Programme. After having appeared in the group discussion and the interview conducted by the respondent no. 2, the name of the petitioner was shortlisted and his rank was at serial no. 106 in the merit list of shortlisted candidates prepared by the respondent. Based on the said merit list, the petitioner was also selected for provisional admission to the said MIB Programme for the academic session 2011-13 and this was informed to the petitioner by the respondent vide their letter dated 7.4.2011. The petitioner through the said letter was also required to furnish his original certificates for participating on the first date of counseling i.e. 17.4.2011. The petitioner could not get a seat in the first counseling and not even in the second counseling, which was held on 15.5.2011. In the second counseling the students up to serial no. 102 in the merit list could secure their seats in the said MIB Programme but still there were vacancies to be further filled by the respondent no.2, but the respondent no.2 did not announce any date or schedule for holding a third counseling. In such a scenario, the petitioner made a representation to the Vice Chancellor of University of Delhi on 24.5.2011, requesting him for filling up all the seats well before the commencement of the academic session of the said course. Getting no response from the Vice-Chancellor, the petitioner then had sought information regarding existing vacant seats under the RTI vide his letter dated 1.6.2011 and in response to the said information, one Professor Mr. J.P. Sharma, officiating Head of the Department of Commerce informed the petitioner that 10 seats were still vacant in the MIB Programme but since the admissions have closed, no counseling will take place. After getting the said information under the RTI, the petitioner submitted yet another representation dated 30.6.2011 to the Programme Coordinator of respondent No.2, but the petitioner did not receive any response to the said representation, but then later he came to know that the respondent no. 2 had conducted an extended second counseling session when the candidates lower in rank to the petitioner in the merit list were given admission in the said course. The petitioner also came to know that even after filling up some seats in the said extended second counseling, there still remained two seats in the said MIB Course. The petitioner along with his father personally met the Programme Controller/MIB on 21.7.2011 when it was revealed to him that the extended second counseling has taken place on 19.7.2011 and since the petitioner did not attend the extended second counseling, therefore, even those students who are lower in the merit position than the petitioner were given admission in the said course. Feeling aggrieved with the arbitrary and discriminatory acts of the respondent no.2 in not giving an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the extended second counseling, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

(3.) OPPOSING the present petition, Mr. M.J.S. Rupal, learned counsel for the respondents states that the meeting of the Advisory Committee constituted by the respondent no.2 was held on 6.7.2011, wherein the decision was taken by the said Committee to conduct an extended second counseling on 19.7.2011. Counsel further points out that all the candidates right from the first rank onwards were informed by the respondent no.2 to participate in the extended second counseling and this information was given to them through SMS as per the mobile phone numbers provided by each candidate in the application form submitted for admission and the said message was sent not only through the mobile phone but through internet as well. Counsel further submits that in addition to the said mode of communication even letters were dispatched through ordinary post to all the candidates and above all the said information of extended second counseling was also put up by the respondents on their website on 8.7.2011. Counsel also points out that on 15.7.2011, another document was uploaded on the website by the name (new_extended_second counseling_display_counseling_list MIBMHROD (2011-2013)) and the said document contained a list of all the general category candidates who were called to participate in the second extended counseling in order of merit. The contention of the counsel for the respondent is that each and every candidate was fully informed about the decision of the respondent no.2 to hold extended second counseling and the exact date thereof, but yet the petitioner did not present himself to participate in the extended second counseling and for his own negligence the petitioner cannot blame the respondent no.2 or the Coordinator of the said Admission Committee.