(1.) Present appeal has been filed challenging the impugned interim order dtd. 23/8/2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 11695/2024, whereby the Respondent nos. 1 to 6 were granted provisional admission in the Appellant College in accordance with the allocation by the Respondent No. 7-Delhi University.
(2.) Learned senior counsel for the Appellant states that Respondent no.7-Delhi University has, instead of allocating students against the sanctioned and permitted intake, made excess allocations which according to the Respondent no. 7-Delhi University, were for convenience as normally all the students do not take admissions, resulting in some seats remaining vacant. He emphasises that admission in Appellant-College is much sought after and students allotted to different Programs of study in the college ordinarily accept the same and the number of vacancies after the initial allotment are very minimal or nil. He states that after raising protest against such policy, the Respondent no. 7 Delhi University vide its e-mail dtd. 19/8/2024 (Page 239) agreed that excess allotment to the Appellant-College would be limited to 5% in each program.
(3.) He, however, states that contrary to the aforesaid commitment/ undertaking, the Respondent no. 7-Delhi University allotted more students over and above the permitted intake and also more than 5% excess intake agreed upon by the college. To illustrate the point, he states that in the B.A. Programme course the Delhi University has allotted 36 students as against the sanctioned strength of 24 students in the General Category i.e. in excess of 50% of the sanctioned strength. He states that as the intake of General Category students has been increased by the university, the intake of minority students would also have to be proportionately increased. According to him if the increase in intake of both the categories is given effect to, the strength of the class would become much beyond the sanctioned strength.