'Unavailability Of Seats No Ground To Deny Admission To Eligible Candidate': HC Directs Delhi University To Create Supernumerary Seat
The Delhi High Court on Friday (Sep. 13) directed Delhi University to consider the admission of the candidate belonging to the reserved Children/Widows of Officer and Men of the Armed Forces category (“CW”) who was not granted admission in the First Round of Counselling because of the non-existence of vacant CW reserved category seats.
Considering the case to be an exceptional circumstance where the candidate was arbitrarily denied a seat despite fulfilling eligibility criteria, the bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed the University to take appropriate steps to either increase the number of seats by one, in the CW category or create a supernumerary seat to be allotted to the appellant in the course for which she had filed her application form.
It was a case where the candidate, Yashika Malik, belonging to the CW category despite being fully meritorious and holding an Education Concession Certificate was not qualified for admission in the first counselling list. Her admission was declined because there were no more seats left in the said category where she could be adjusted.
Stating that the candidates being less meritorious than her were granted seats in the CW category in the first provisional list but her candidature was denied, the appellant had approached the High Court where the Single Judge while granting the benefit of reservation to her directed the respondents to consider her admission in the second round of counselling in the event seats were not available in the first round of counselling.
The Single Judge Court had directed to give admission to the petitioner subject to the availability of seats in the first round of counselling list in the CW category as Priority-V (VIII).
By way of the present letter patent appeal (LPA), the appellant/candidate had challenged the decision of the Single Judge contending that the Single Judge had erroneously directed the appellant to be considered in the first round of counselling only subject to the availability of seats, and therefore, she was denied her right to be considered for reservation in the first round.
In this regard, the appellant referred to the Supreme Court case of S. Krishna Sradha v. State of A.P (2020) wherein it was held that where a candidate has been arbitrarily denied a seat and has approached the Court at the earliest, then the Court may direct admission in the same year by directing the increase of seats at the earliest.
Accepting the appellant's argument, the Court observed that the appellant was wrongly denied the benefit of reservation in the first counseling list despite being fully meritorious and possessing the essential ECC.
“The result being that the appellant is deprived of her rightful allocation of a seat under the CW reservation. As per respondent no.4/MCC, there are no vacancies in the unreserved or CW category seats where the appellant could be adjusted. That apart from the above, it is not disputed that candidates lower in merit to the appellant have already been allocated seats in CW category, which in the considered opinion of this Court is unfair and unjust, given the facts obtaining on the record. It is trite that merits stands on a higher footing and such allocation of seat to other less meritorious students is actually detrimental and prejudicial to the interest of the appellant. This Court cannot countenance a situation where an individual like the appellant is fully meritorious and possesses the essential ECC can be deprived of her rightful reservation.”, the court observed.
Relying on the S. Krishna Sradha case, the court held that the appellant had made out a case to issue a direction to increase the number of seats by one to ensure complete justice.
“In view of the above and following the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court above, we direct the respondent no.1/DU as well as the respondent no.4/MCC to take appropriate steps to either increase the number of seat by one, in the CW category or create a supernumerary seat to be allotted to the appellant in the course for which she had filed her application form. The said exercise shall be carried out within ten (10) days from today.”, the court held.
Accordingly, the impugned judgment was modified.
Appearance:
For Appellant: Mr. M.V.Mukanda, Advocate.
For Respondent: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate with Mr.Hardik Rupal, Advocate for R-1/DU. Mr. Akhil Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Manish Agrawal Narain, CGSC for R-2 & 3. Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Mr.Mukesh Kr. Tiwari and Ms. Reba Jena Mishra, Advocates for R-4.
Case Title: YASHIKA MALIK VERSUS UNIVERSITY OF DELHI FACULTY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & ORS, LPA 887/2024