SANGEETA SHRIVASTAVA Vs. U N SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner in this writ petition challenges, the order of the respondent No. 2, University of Delhi, in refusing to allow the petitioner to take the examination of M.A. (P) held in April 1979 This petition was filed on 6th April 1979 and pending the disposal of the petition the petitioner was allowed to appear for the M.A. (P) History examination commencing on 7th April 1979. She has since taken the examination but her result has been withheld to await the decision in the present writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner passed her B. A. (Hons.) History examination in 11978 from Delhi University. She was a. student in Indraprastha College women. She secured 354 marks out of 800 marks equivalent to 44.25 per cent. For admission to the Post Graduate course candidates desirous of seeking admission to M.A. must fulfil the requisite condition of having passed with prescribed percentage as detailed in the appendix I of the Bulletin of Information. At page 9 of the Bulletin Note 1 provides that rounding of a fraction of marks tor purposes of admission to any course is not permissible and note 2 provides that candidate not fulfilling the eligibility requirements shall not be registered and no request for relaxation in the minimum eligibility requirements shall be entertained.

(3.) Admission to M. A. History in Delhi University course requirement is B. A. (Hons.) in History from Delhi University. Those candidates who get 50 per cent marks or above in the main subject are entitled to automatic admission while candidates who get 45 per cent or more but less than 50 per cent marks that is category (B) will have to take admission test of the department of history from which the consolidated merit list will be prepared and admission will be strictly according to merit. These instructions are found on pages 22-23 in the Bulletin of information for 1978-79. Therefore if the Rules are to be strictly followed the petitioner was not eligible to seek admission to M. A. History course because she was short by 6 marks. She nevertheless applied for registration and sent her application. In the said application she correctly mentioned her marks as 354/800 and the division and percentage mentioned was III and 45 per cent appro.(approximate). Notwithstanding that on apparent reading of her application the petitioner did not fulfil the eligibility requirement. She applied for registration to appear in the entrance examination and she was issued a registration slip No. 3271 on 6th July 1978 by the University of Delhi, respondent No. 2. permitting her to take the entrance examination which she took on 28th July. 1978. She was declared successful in the entrance examination and was placed second in order of merit in the second list of successful candidates. The petitioner was given an admission slip and obtained admission in the Indraprastha College for Women, respondent No. 3. It is alleged in the petition that thereafter she attended the classes regularly as well as tutorial classes of M.A. in the year 1978-79 and paid her college fee regularly upto April 1979. This part of her allegation has not been disputed in the counter affidavits. On 2nd April, 1979 the petitioner went to the college to collect her roll number and the admission ticket but was told that the same had not been received. The petitioner alleges that she filled her form with fee of Rs. 32 and submitted the same to the college authorities which forwarded the same to the Controller of Examination. This is not disputed by the respondents. The examination was to commence from 7th April. 1979. On April 4, 1979 the petitioner went to the college to collect her admission ticket but found that the same had not come from the university. She thereafter obtained a letter dated 4th April. 1979 from the Principal of the college addressed to the Controller of Examination requesting him that the college had not received the admission ticket of the petitioner for the examination MA. previous History and requesting that this may be handed over to her personally. It is the case of the petitioner that she went to university on 4th April, 1979, she was informed that her admission had been cancelled as far back as October 1978 and that this was the first time that she came to know of it. She thereupon made a representation to the Vice- Chancellor on 6th April, 1979 requesting the issue of admission ticket in which she mentioned that she had been attending classes all through and that it was only on 4th April, 1979 that she came to know that her admission to M.A. had been cancelled in October, 1978 and asking that she may be allowed to appear in the examination without prejudice to the decision that may be taken subsequently by the University. This application was forwarded and recommended by the Principal of the college for sympathetic consideration. The university however, did not permit her to take the examination and that is why she came to this court and obtained an order or. 6th April, 1979 allowing her to take the examination provisionally.