The Delhi HC was dealing with the petition filed against the decision of University of Delhi for the effect that the petitioner is ineligible for allotment of a seat in the M.A. Geography course.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner is a graduate of Himachal Pradesh University. She completed her undergraduate studies in the Choice Based Credit System and obtained a B.Sc. (Hons.) degree with a major in Chemistry and minors in Mathematics and Geography. The University released a Bulletin of Information for admissions to postgraduate courses in July, 2021, pursuant to which the petitioner applied for admission to the M.A. Geography course in the Scheduled Tribe category. She participated in the entrance examination and secured second place in the ST category. However, the University refused to admit her, pursuant to which she made various representations, which have been rejected. The rejection was on account of the fact that the eligibility criteria mentioned in the Bulletin require a candidate to have a minimum of 24 credits in Geography with at least four courses of six credits each, whereas the petitioner’s qualifying degree did not include any course of six credits. The petitioner does appear to have 24 credits in Geography, but those were earned by taking six courses of only four credits each.
Petitioner’s Contention:
The learned counsel for the petitioner draws the court’s attention to a document published by the University Grants Commission [“UGC”] entitled “Minimum Course Curriculum for Undergraduate Courses under Choice Based Credit System”. He submitted that the UGC has not specified any particular combination of credits and courses which must be taken into account to qualify for admission to postgraduate courses, and that the insistence of the University upon four courses of six credits each is, therefore, arbitrary and capricious.
Respondent’s Contention:
The learned counsel for the University submitted that the petitioner has participated in the application process pursuant to the Bulletin. She was fully aware of the eligibility criterion, but did not challenge the same at any stage and has only come to the Court after the declaration of the first and second admission lists. He further submits that fixation of eligibility criteria is a matter of academic policy which the writ court ought not to interfere with.
HC’s observations:
After hearing both the sides the HC observed that the petitioner did not possess B.Sc. (Hons.) degree in Geography and, therefore, falls within Category Id 2. The stipulation that candidates should have done at least four courses of six credits each [with a minimum total of 24 credits] in Geography is expressly stated in the Bulletin, and is also stated in the application form signed and submitted by the petitioner.
The court also stated that “the petitioner’s failure to challenge these provisions at the appropriate time comes in her way. Several candidates in a similar position as the petitioner’s may have chosen not to apply in view of the eligibility criteria or may have been rejected as a consequence thereof. It is well settled that candidates who participate in a selection process being fully aware of the rules governing the same are generally disentitled from challenging the said process at a belated stage.”
The HC relied upon the case of Ramesh Chandra Shah and Others vs. Anil Joshi and Others, where the SC held that “If they had cleared the test, the private respondents would not have raised any objection to the selection procedure or the methodology adopted by the Board. They made a grievance only after they found that their names do not figure in the list of successful candidates. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome.”
The HC observed that the University has laid down the particular manner in which 24 credits should be earned for a candidate to be admitted to postgraduate courses. Whether six courses of four credits each are sufficient, or four courses of six credits should be required, is a matter of policy. The writ court is generally loathe to interfere with eligibility criteria laid down by academic experts, unless they are shown to be manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable.
The HC relied upon the case of Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, where the SC held that “It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realise and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters.”
The court stated that “The University’s decision requiring a candidate for a postgraduate course to have completed a certain number of undergraduate courses in the same subject with a higher credit level cannot be characterised as arbitrary or unreasonable in this context.”
HC held:
After evaluating various submissions and case laws the HC held that the fixation of eligibility criteria is a matter for the University to decide. It may visit an unfortunate consequence upon students from a particular university, but that by itself does not render the eligibility criteria arbitrary. There is no suggestion in the writ petition that other universities do not offer six credit courses or that the criterion is such that it results in an impossibility. The HC dismissed the petition.
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prateek Jalan
Case Title: Alkeshwari Negi v. University of Delhi & Anr.
Case Details: W.P.(C) 13525/2021
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments