AJAY BHUSHAN KALIA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Miscellanous Application No. 8040/92 in C.W. 3886/92. C.M. 376/92 in C.W. 2671/92, C.M/8037/92 in C.W. 3744/92, C.M.8042/ 92 in C.W. 3959/92, C.M. 8043/92 in C.W 3899/92, C.M. 8045/92 in C.W. 2960/ 92, C.M. 8042/92 in C.W. 3919/92, C.M. 8044/92 in C.W. 3995/92, C.M.8059/ 92 in C.W. 193/92 & C.M. 376/93 to C.W.2671/92.

(2.) The petitioner is a graduate from University of Delhi having scored 44% marks. He is seeking admission to the LL.B. 1st course of the University of Delhi for the academic year 1992-93. On 22-6-1992 the respondent University issued an advertisement in the local newspaper signifying that there would be a test for the admission to the LL.B. three years degree course. It was further provided that the test was open to candidates who have passed Master's/ Bachelor's degree examination under 10 + 2 + 3 scheme of Delhi University or an examination recognised by Delhi University as equivalent thereto securing at least 50% marks in the aggregate and have completed 20 years of age as on 1-10-1992. The petitioner being desirous of taking admission in LL.B. course appeared for the entrance test. He secured 185 marks out of 600. He was refused admission by the University of Delhi on the ground that he had secured less than 50% in graduation. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved of the stand taken by the University, approached this Court by way of a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the eligibility condition of minimum 50% marks in graduation being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional.

(3.) In similar circumstances 2 other students Jayshree Ravi and Anil Kaushal. filed a petition being C.W.P. 2603/1992 challenging the eligibility condition of 50% marks in the aggregate as illegal, arbitrary and irrational. A Division Bench of this Court comprising Mahinder Narain and Jaspal Singh, JJ. heard and decided that writ petition by judgment dated 14-12-1992. Mahinder Narain, J. held that the prescription of minimum 50% marks in B.A. as a condition precedent to sit in the entrance examination prescribed by the University of Delhi was arbitrary, unreasonabe and violative of the provisions of Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and as such that condition was liable to be struck down and was quashed. It was further directed that the petitioners were also entitled to mandamus that they be permitted to appear in the entrance examination for the admission to LL.B. course for the academic year 1992-93. However, Jaspal Singh, J. did not agree with Mahinder Narain, J. and by a separate judgment upheld the validity of the prescribed qualifying marks of 50% for sitting in the entrance examination. In view of the difference of opinion amongst the two learned Judges the following order was passed: