SHYAMAL KUMAR Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the averments of the petitioner he was a regular student of LL.B. Course at Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi for the academic session 1995-98. He passed in 29 out of 30 papers of the LL.B. Course and failed in the remaining paper Jurisprudence i. Hence he had to appear in the supplementary examination for the said paper. The result of the supplementary examination was declared on 24.8.1998 and the petitioner was declared to have passed in the supplementary examination. In the meanwhile the petitioner had applied for admission to LL.M. Course for the session 1998-2000 and had appeared in the admission test. He secured rank No. 15 in the merit list. There were 20 seats in the general category. The first admission list of 20 candidates of the general category was notified on 27th July, 1998. The candidates whose names had appeared in the first list published on 27th July, 1998 were directed to submit the duly filled up admission forms alongwith the documents by 29th July, 1998 even if the result of their qualifying examination had not been declared. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted the duly filled up admission form and documents except the result of the qualifying examination. Though the petitioner had applied for the confidential result of the supplementary examination it was not available when the admission form was submitted. The confidential result was received only on 10th August, 1998 and it was promptly submitted on the same day. However, in the meanwhile the Convener of the Admission Committee had published another notice requiring the candidates to complete the admission formalities including payment of fees latest by 8th August, 1998 failing which they would lose their right to admission. Even the confidential result of the supplementary examination in the case of the petitioner was received only on 10th August, 1998 and hence the petitioner could not complete the admission formalities within the stipulated time. Consequently admission was denied to the petitioner.

(2.) . Aggrieved by the denial of admission of LL.M. course in the circumstances stated above the petitioner filed this writ petition praying for directions to the respondents - the Vice Chancellor, the Dean, Faculty of Law and the Admission Committee, Faculty of Law of the Delhi University - to consider the case of the petitioner for admission to LL.M. course as he had submitted the confidential result of the supplementary examination on 10th August, 1998. Professor A.K. Kaul, Convener of the Admission Committee has filed an affidavit on behalf of the respondents. According to the averments in the said affidavit the prospectus issued by the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi for the year 1998-99 contained a schedule of relevant dates. As per the said schedule the date of entrance test for LL.M. was 12th July, 1998 and the date of declaration of result of the entrance test was 17th July, 1998. The admission list was to be published on 27th July, 1998. Last date of close of admissions would be later notified on the Notice Board of the Admission Committee. The result of the entrance test was declared on 27.7.1998 itself. In all there were 30 seats to be filled in the LL.M. course. Of these 15% seats were reserved for Scheduled Castes and 7.5% seats were reserved for Scheduled Tribes. The first merit list of 21 candidates in the general category was published on 27.7.1998. When the merit list was displayed on 27.7.1998 the result of only three seats in the general category, namely Serial Nos. 14,20 and 21 were available as they had passed the LL.B. course in previous years. The result of all other candidates was awaited. In the notice displayed on the Notice Board by the Admission Committee the candidates whose names appeared in the merit list were notified that the last date by which their forms would be accepted was 31.7.1998. It was further stated in the notice that the forms must be submitted by the said date even if the result of the qualifying degree had not been declared. Except one, all the candidates of the general category submitted their forms by 31.7.1998. This necessitated a further list of one candidate in the general category whichwasdisplayedon4.8.1998. The result of Law Centre-1 and Campus Law Centre in respect of LL.B. course and the result of the supplementary examination had not been declared by 27.7.1998. Hence some of the candidates approached the Dean, Students Welfare of the University of Delhi urging that the Faculty of Law should beasked to wait till their results were declared so that they could be admitted to the courses concerned. The Dean, Students Welfare put up a note to the Vice Chancellor on 30.7.1998 staling that as the delay in the publication of results was the responsibility of the University, the Vice Chancellor should instruct the Faculty of Law to keep seats reserved for such candidates till their results were out. The Vice Chancellor approved the note on the same date and a copy of the same was forwarded to the Dean, Faculty of Law for necessary action. The Dean forwarded the said note to the Convener of the Admission Committee for necessary action and the Convener called a meeting of the Admission Committee on 4.8.1998. All Members of the Admission Committee were present. In the context of the note received from the Dean, Students Welfare, the following decision was taken by the Admission Committee.

(3.) . In his affidavit the Convener of the Admission Committee has denied the allegation that the Admission Committee procured confidential result of candidates from the Examination Branch. It is stated that there was no such policy of procuring the result confidentially from the Examination Branch. It is further stated that the petitioner did not make any request to the Admission Committee or to any Member of the Admission Committee to obtain the result of the Supplementary Examination from the University confidentially. It is also denied that the Admission Committee verbally assured the petitioner that the Committee would wait till the result of his Supplementary Examination was published. It has also been clarified that in the case of Ms. Prabha Tiwary mentioned in the writ petition she was given admission on the basis of the result produced by her.