ABHINITAM Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Jubilee Hall Hostel of the Delhi University refused the petitioner the residence compelling him to knock at the doors of the Court for redressal of his grievance.

(2.) The petitioner joined the LL.B course of the Faculty of Law of the University of Delhi but was able to get the hostel accommodation only on 1.10.2002 when he was in his final year. This admission was based on the basis of his merit and he continued to reside in the hostel. The petitioner successfully completed the course study for the LL.B degree in July, 2003 and after qualifying in the entrance examination, was admitted to the LL.M first year course of the Faculty of Law. The petitioner was desirous of continuing to avail of the hostel accommodation and was permitted to occupy the accommodation in terms of the Hand Book of Information and Rules 2003-2004 of the Jubilee Hall, University of Delhi (hereinafter the provisions of the same being referred to as the Rules). In terms of Rule 7.4.7 the bonafide Hall residents become non-bonafide just after completion of the final examinations and can be permitted to stay as guests in case of vacancy. The relevant rules 7.4.7 and 7.4.8 are as under:-

(3.) There appears to be delays in making admissions to the hostel since it was only in November, 2003 that the process began for fresh admissions to the hostel and the last date for making an application was stipulated as 10.11.2003. The petitioner applied on 7.11.2003 for re-admission to the hostel. The petitioner, however, received a notice dated 14.11.2003 to vacate the hostel by 19.11.2003. The petitioner claims to have made an oral representation against the same requesting for permission to continue to occupy at least till the process of admission was completed or till December, 2003 when his examinations were scheduled but was apparently informed that he would have to vacate the hostel if he wanted his application to be considered. The petitioner vacated the hostel on 25.11.2003. The petitioner has alleged that while the petitioner so vacated the hostel, other occupants continued to occupy their rooms. The names of five such candidates have been given in para-11 of the writ petition and this is not denied in the counter affidavit though it is stated that these students were placed under different category and have been subsequently admitted afresh on the basis of their merit as per rules.