Petitioner, a PWD candidate ranked 159th, sought mandatory direction for admission to Delhi University Law Course. Court held reservation seats were fully exhausted and merit-based cutoff was not met, dismissing the writ petition.
Direction to allow fee deposit and attend classes dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~28
Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahna, Adv. with Mr. Manoj Kr. Sharma, Adv.
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal & Ms. Simran Jeet, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
“Pass an order/direction including a suitable writ in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the respondent to allow the petitioner to deposit fee in the law course of respondent for the academic year 2016-17 and allow to attend classes.”
petitioner that on May 14, 2016, petitioner applied for admission to law course in the Delhi University. On June 22, 2016, he appeared in the entrance examination and the result thereof was declared on July 5, 2016 and the petitioner secured 159th rank under the PWD category.
August 23, 2016, admission for 2310 seats was announced by the respondents. On August 29, 2016, the petitioner attended the counselling and submitted all the documents with the respondents. On September 3, 2016, a revised admission procedure was issued by the respondents stating that those candidates who could not attend the counselling on August 29, 2016 can again appear in the counselling. The first list concerning PWD candidates was issued on September 11, 2016 having names of 62 candidates. Second list was prepared having the names of two candidates. Similarly, third list was issued consisting names of two more candidates. In all, the respondents have admitted 66 PWD candidates against 2310 total seats.
has been approved, the respondents cannot deny the admission to the petitioner. He would also rely upon the instructions issued by the University of Delhi dated July 6, 2015 to contend that 3% of reservation shall be calculated on the number of seats available for admissions in a particular College/Institution/Department in a particular year.
LL.B. course. The details of the chart are reproduced for convenience.
Seat Distribution of the LL.B. Course for this session
1. Original Distribution: Total 2310 seats are distributed among the following seven categories (UR+OBC+SC+ST+PWD+CW+FN), based on the reservation policy of the University of Delhi.
(a) 50.5% UR+ 27% OBC+ 15% SC+7.5% ST+ 3% PWD+ 5%CW+ 5% FN= 2310
(b) 50.5% UR+ 27% OBC+ 15% SC+7.5% ST= 2045
(c) 3% PWD+ 5%CW+ 5% FN= 265
Such that: (b)2045 + (c) 265 = (a) 2310
(d) Actual Seat distribution:
UR: 1033 (50.5% of 2045) OBC: 552 (27% of 2045) SC: 307 (15% of 2045) ST: 153 (7.5% of 2045) PwD: 61 (3% of 2045)
CW: 102 (5% of 2045) FN: 102 (5% of 2045)
Grant Total = 2310
=================== 2. Maximum eligible candidates in CW and FN:
CW: 30 FN: 07 i.e 30+ 7= 37 seats in total for CW + FN Remaining seats in CW: 102-30=72 Remaining seats in FN: 102-07=95 Total leftover (vacant) seats in CW+FN= 72+95=167
These 167 leftover seats are redistributed to 5 other categories (UR+OBC+SC+ST+PwD), as per the University reservation policy: UR: 82 OBC: 44 SC: 24 ST: 12 PwD: 05 Total= 167
3. Final seat distribution after redistribution of Vacant CW and FN seats:
Total 2310 (inclusive of UR+OBC+SC+ST+PwD+CW+FN)
UR: 1033+82= 1115 OBC: 552+ 44=596 SC: 307+ 24=331 ST: 153+12=165 PwD: 61+ 5=66 CW: 30 (maximum eligible candidates) FN: 07 (maximum eligible candidates)
Grand Total: 2310”
the admission form of the petitioner and there being a remark on the form that the admission of the petitioner has been approved, (which submission has been denied by Mr. Rupal by pointing out to page 57 of the paper-book) is concerned, I reproduce here under the relevant, stipulation in the notification dated September 03, 2016.
“It may be noted that the reporting and document verification alone does not entitle a candidate for admission. Admission shall be given to the eligible candidate (subject to the verification of the documents) who reported at the Faculty of Law during prescribed time limit, against the available seats, as per merit.”
Mr. Rupal is right in contending that, acceptance of an admission form, shall not confer any right in favour of the candidate as admission has to be on merit.
30th September, 2016; the submission has been disputed by Mr. Mahna by stating that admissions were also effected in the month of October, 2016. Be that as it may, in view of the discussion above, this Court is of the view
that the prayer as made in the present petition cannot be granted. The
petition is dismissed.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
DECEMBER 07, 2016 /ak
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to admission in the PWD category given her rank of 159th and the available number of reserved seats.
Whether the 3% horizontal reservation for PWD candidates must be calculated on total seats or eligible merit seats.
Whether submission of admission form without final merit-based allocation confers a right to fee deposit.
SHREYA SHARMA
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
V. KAMESWAR RAO
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
