PUNEET DUDEJA Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LPA No. 318/2003 The case relates to admission to the B- Tech (part-time course), for Academic Year 2002-03, by Delhi College of Engineering (Respondent no.3) under University of Delhi (Respondent no.2). College had given admission to respondent no.4 in the said course which was challenged by the appellant herein by filing CW NO. 6089/2002 on the ground that respondent no.4 was not eligible to be admitted. It may be mentioned that appellant has a three-year diploma in Civil Engineering. Respondent no.4 is having a diploma in Architectural Assistantship which is also of three years duration. The eligibility criteria for admission to B-Tech programme is a State Diploma Examination of three years duration or any other examination recognised equivalent thereto with a minimum aggregate of 55% marks. The case of the appellant was that diploma in Architectural Assistantship possessed by respondent no.4 could not be treated as equivalent to a State Diploma Examination. As no exercise was undertaken by the University of Delhi, as to whether Architectural Assistantship was equivalent to a State Diploma Examination, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition vide judgment dated 7th April, 2003 by giving the following direction:-

(2.) The exercise was not undertaken within the period stipulated. Appellant, in these circumstances filed this appeal. While issuing notices in this appeal on 6th May, 2003, we directed the Academic Council Delhi University to place before the Court as to what decision was taken in the matter. It is a matter of record that this exercise was undertaken by the Vice-Chancellor only after the notice in this appeal was served upon the respondents. Decision has been communicated to this Court by filing affidavit dated 7th July, 2003 of Dr. Atindra Sen, Registrar, Delhi University. In para 6 of the affidavit, it is stated as under:-

(3.) Admittedly, if respondent no.4 was not to be given admission, it was the appellant who was next in the waiting list, who would have got the admission. Therefore, the fall out of the decision of the Vice-Chancellor would be that the appellant was wrongly denied admission to the course. It may be stated that the appellant had approached this Court by filing CW NO. 6089/2002 without loss of any time on 20th September, 2002, i.e. immediately after the admission was given to respondent no.4. It was due to the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and delay in complying with the directions that the Academic Year 2002-03 was over. Accordingly, on 9th July, 2003, when this matter came up before this Court, observation was made by us that University/College shouId consider the desirability of giving admission to the appellant in the first year of course of this Academic Year as the appellant had qualified the written test in the previous year, but he was denied admission due to no fault of his, but because of the wrong decision taken by the Committee of respondent no.3 school.