Marksheets & Human Beings Are Fundamentally Different: Delhi HC Directs Stephen’s College To Grant Admission To Students

The Delhi High Court directed the Stephen’s College to grant admission to the students who were denied admission despite being eligible and meritorious.

The Court was deciding a batch of writ petitions preferred by the students seeking direction to provide seats for the courses in which they had qualified.

A Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma remarked, “Learned Senior Counsel for the College had argued that while granting degrees, if a student scores 59.40% marks, the same are not rounded off to 60%. In this Court’s opinion, marksheets and human beings are fundamentally different and must be treated as such. The treatment of fractions in the context of human seat allocations cannot be equated to their treatment in mathematical calculations for marks on a marksheet. Therefore, when dealing with fractions like 1.2 or 1.3 or 1.4 in the context of seat allocations, the figure must be rounded up to 2, as humans cannot be divided into fractions, and rounding off to the lower numerical figure would undermine the spirit of the policy.”

The Bench said that the interpretation of beneficial policies must align with the intent behind them and cannot result in a reduction below the prescribed 5% extra intake.

Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra represented the petitioners while Senior Advocates Romy Chacko and A. Mariarputham represented the respondents.

Facts of the Case -

The Common University Entrance Test (CUET) applications were made available through National Testing Agency (NTA) from February to April 2024 during which the petitioners had duly applied. Accordingly, the CUET exams were conducted in May 2024 with one rescheduled test which was held due to certain issues. Following this, the Common Seat Allocation System (CSAS) Phase I took place and in July 2024, the results were declared. Thereafter, the Delhi University (DU) issued a press release regarding the Allocation-cum-Admission schedule for Undergraduate admissions, for the Academic Session 2024-25.

Further, CSAS Phase-II had commenced in August 2024, requiring students to select their preferred colleges which the petitioners had duly complied with, by filling in the necessary details of their preferred courses and colleges. The first list of CSAS allocations was declared and the petitioners were successfully allocated seats. Following this, the Stephen’s College was to verify and approve the petitioners’ online applications with the payment of online fees. However, the College neither approved nor rejected their applications, despite all necessary documents and compliances being duly completed. Resultantly, the petitioners were unable to pay online fees and secure their seats at their desired college. Being aggrieved and fearing that they may lose an entire academic year, the petitioners were before the High Court.

The following five issues arose before the High Court for consideration –

(1) Whether the thirteen B.A. programs offered by St. Stephen’s College should be treated as distinct and separate programs, or as a single unified B.A. program for the purposes of seat allocation/admission under the Christian Minority category and Unreserved category?

(2) Whether Delhi University could have allocated 5% extra students to the respondent College, which has been challenged in the Additional Counter Affidavit and during Arguments by the respondent College, and whether such an allocation was in accordance with the agreed terms?

(3) Whether, in determining the 5% extra seat allocation, fractions below 0.5 should be rounded off to the lower side or the higher side?

(4) Whether this Court has the jurisdiction, in the present petition, to adjudicate the validity and constitutionality of the 'Single Girl Child Quota' as implemented by Delhi University?

(5) Whether the petitioners should be denied admission to the respondent College despite fulfilling all requirements, solely due to a dispute or misunderstanding between the College and the University, which was beyond the petitioners’ control?

The Court in view of the first issue observed, “… this Court cannot accept the argument of the respondent no. 3 College that these thirteen courses are merely different subject combinations, within one B.A. Program, and are not to be treated as separate B.A. Programs. Based on the conduct of St. Stephen‟s College in preparing a distinct seat matrix and setting separate cut-off marks for each of these B.A. programs, this Court finds that these thirteen B.A. programs must be considered as separate and distinct programs for the purpose of seat allocation and admissions under both the Christian Minority and Unreserved categories.”

In respect of the second issue, the Court noted that CSAS, which is binding on all colleges affiliated to Delhi University, clearly mentions that the University may allocate extra students in the initial rounds to ensure that academic session commences on time and that the aim of this policy is to ensure that since many students often do not take admission in colleges despite allocation, the crucial time of the colleges is not wasted in several rounds of counselling and the seats are filled up earlier, so that the classes start timely with optimal class strength.

“Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of respondent no. 3 St. Stephen’s College, that Delhi University’s policy of allocating extra students in the initial round is impermissible in law and arbitrary, is bereft of any merit. This Court finds that the College itself has been consistently following this policy for the last three years, including in the present academic year, without raising any objection or challenging the same in a Court of law. Having accepted and applied this policy, the College cannot now challenge its validity in these proceedings, particularly when the students have been allocated to the College as per the provisions of CSAS (UG)-2024”, it added.

With regard to the third issue, the Court said that while accepting the 5% extra allocation and demanding 5% corresponding extra admission under Christian category the respondents were well aware about their infrastructure and staff constraints, if any.

“… the College itself admits to having honoured its word by, inter alia, admitting candidates in newly created categories including the Single Girl Child quota, in each one of its programs. … Thus, the College cannot now take a contradictory stand before this Court to argue that the quota is unconstitutional, when it has itself adhered to the said policy and admitted candidates under the said quota, without raising any objections or challenging the vires of the same”, enunciated the Court while dealing with the fourth issue.

Coming to the last issue, the Court observed that the petitioners were not at fault at any point during the process of admission, but had to face undue hardship due to the ongoing dispute between the University and the College pertaining to seat matrix and the manner of calculation of fraction while calculating the number of allocated seats as per the policy of the University.

“On the one hand, the petitioners faced the challenge of uncertainty over securing admission to their preferred college, St. Stephens, and on the other hand, they were also deprived of the opportunity to select and opt for their second-choice college. The prolonged „under process‟ status effectively blocked their participation in subsequent allocation rounds, causing them to miss out on other potential options for securing a seat”, it said.

Furthermore, the Court remarked that the petitioners now have a legitimate expectation from the Delhi University that they must be granted admission in the College as they are meritorious, fulfill all the eligibility criteria, and were allotted St. Stephen’s College by the Delhi University as per rules of the CSAS (UG)-2024.

“… the respondent no. 3 i.e. St. Stephen’s College is directed to grant admission to the petitioners herein, as per the allocation policy of the University which has been followed by the College itself in the last academic years, so that they are able to attend their classes, after fulfilling the other formalities as required under the relevant rules”, it directed.

The Court added that this case has travelled and reached the end of the tunnel of litigation before the Court, where the petitioners were unsure of their future and admission in the college of their choice for which they have worked so hard and fortunately, they have light at the end of this tunnel.

“The educational institutions which contribute significantly to preparing the future generations of our country, should best be administering and teaching in their educational institutions and not forced to defend their cases in the Courts, which can be ensured only by way of a simple solution finding process through timely meetings between the parties and time bound solutions”, it emphasised.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petitions and issued necessary directions.

Cause Title- Hargun Singh Ahluwalia & Ors. v. Delhi University & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:6844)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, Advocates Ravinder Singh, Raveesha Gupta, Ansuiya, Ritvik Bhardwaj, and Shivansh Maini.

Respondents: Senior Advocates Romy Chacko, A. Mariarputham, Advocates Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Hardik Rupal, Sanjay Khanna, Pragya Bhushan, Karandeep Singh, Tarandeep Singh, Himani Sharma, and Akshat Singh.

Click here to read/download the Judgment