In a PIL regarding denied admission to M.A. Economics, the petitioner claimed she missed an admission list due to not receiving an update notification while marks were available centrally. The Court held the email was sent and the University fulfilled its duty by publishing instructions; failing to update details led to dismissal.
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.
PREENA GADRA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Arunava Mukherjee, Adv.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal and Ms. Simran Jeet, Advs.
CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
JUDGMENT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
W.P.(C) 7078/2016
“(i) Issue a Writ / Order or Direction in the nature of mandamus to the Respondents directing them to forthwith admit the petitioner to the post graduate course of M.A. (Economics) at the Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi, for the batch commencing 2016; and
(ii) Pass any order or further order (s) as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
W.P.(C) No. 7078/2016
Page 1 of 6
(Economics) at Delhi School of Economics is done through two modes; on the basis of merit secured in Graduation in the Delhi University and through the Entrance Examination. It is her case that her application was duly acknowledged on 7th August, 2016 by the University. The first cutoff list was announced online by the respondents wherein only the names of the selected candidates were mentioned, but the percentage of marks at Graduation based on which merit list was prepared was not indicated. In the second cut-off list, both the names of eligible applicants and the percentage of marks at Graduation were mentioned. Since the percentage of 12 successful applicants in SC category was in the range of 68% to 70.5%, the petitioner realized, she was denied admission in the first cutoff list. On enquiries, it was revealed that e-mails have been sent by respondent no.1 on 14th July, 2016 to all the applicants. It is her case that respondent no.1 did not send e-mail to her inviting her to update her application by uploading the graduation marks. It is also her case that petitioner visited the office of the respondents, but still has been denied admission even though the respondents acknowledged verbally that her marks were available with them through the Central Data-base and she deserves to be admitted. According to her, respondents advised her to wait for the fourth cut-off list although she should have been admitted to the post already, as she has the requisite marks.
W.P.(C) No. 7078/2016
Page 2 of 6
W.P.(C) No. 7078/2016
Page 3 of 6
applicants and thus respondent / University cannot be held responsible. It is the stand of the University that e-mail was sent on 14th July, 2015 to the applicants for M.A. (Economics) course requiring them to update their applications by providing relevant information. Although the e-mail was just a reminder, the applicants were required to keep a track of the undergoing process of admission and provide information on their own. Respondents confirmed that the log of e-mails extracted from the admission portal, an e-mail was sent to the petitioner at 05:58:57 am. They have annexed the screen shot showing the name of the petitioner.
W.P.(C) No. 7078/2016
Page 4 of 6
needs to be decided is whether the petitioner has received the e-mail or not.
W.P.(C) No. 7078/2016
Page 5 of 6
CM. NO. 29156/2016
Dismissed as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
NOVEMBER 09, 2016/ jg
W.P.(C) No. 7078/2016
Page 6 of 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has received the e-mail directing her to update her qualifying marks resulting in her denial of admission.
Whether the University can be held responsible for failing to retrieve her details from the Central Database when she had the opportunity to upload them.
Whether an additional seat can be created in favor of the petitioner despite all seats being filled in the merit quota.
Preena Gadra
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
