Entirely New Ground Which Was Not Present In The Counter-Affidavit Cannot Be Raised During Oral Arguments: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court observed that an entirely new ground, which was not taken in the counter-affidavit, cannot be raised during oral arguments.

Directing the Jamia Millia Islamia university to admit the petitioner in the course, the Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar observed that, "before approaching this Court, the petitioner was never informed of the grounds on which he was regarded as ineligible for admission to the B.Ed (Urdu) course. It was only in the counter-affidavit that the JMI chose to contend that the petitioner was ineligible as he had not studied Urdu for two years/four semesters in Graduation. Now, in oral arguments, the JMI cannot be allowed to raise an entirely new ground, which is that the petitioner could not have chosen Urdu as his main teaching subject for his B.Ed programme at all and was mandatorily required to choose History. The submission of Mr. Sabharwal, therefore, cannot be accepted, even for the reason that it travels beyond and is, in fact, contrary to the case that the JMI has chosen to set up against the petitioner in its counteraffidavit."

Counsel Aayush Agarwala and Counsel Bhumika Sharma appeared for the petitioner, while Counsel Pritish Sabharwal and Counsel Shweta appeared for the respondent.

The petitioner, a candidate with blindness/low vision, applied for admission to the B.Ed (Urdu) course at Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI). The selection process included a written examination and an interview, in which the petitioner scored 106.75 marks, surpassing the cut-off marks of 57.75 designated for persons with disabilities. Although the petitioner believed he performed well in the interview, JMI did not communicate his selection.

Upon inquiring, the petitioner discovered that JMI had rejected his admission. In response to further inquiries, JMI sent an email on November 21, 2023, stating that despite his 106.75 marks in the written examination, he was deemed "not eligible" during the interview stage.

As the petitioner was not provided with any reasons for his ineligibility, he approached the Court, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash JMI's decision to reject his candidature for the B.Ed (Urdu) course for the academic year 2023-2024. The petitioner also sought a direction to admit him to the said course.

The Court set aside the decision of the JMI to reject the petitioner's candidature for pursuing the course, and directed the JMI to admit the petitioner to the course for the academic year. It was observed in that context that, "The petitioner has weathered a written examination, in which he scored much more than the cut off marks, and has also undertaken the interview. His proficiency in Urdu does not, therefore, appear to be disputable. The benefit of the ambiguity in the stipulated eligibility conditions – assuming the stand of the JMI in the Court is at all acceptable – has, in such circumstances, necessarily to enure to the benefit of the petitioner."

Appearances:

Petitioner: Counsels Aayush Agarwala, Bhumika Sharma

Respondent: Counsels Pritish Sabharwal, Shweta

Cause Title: MD Dilwar Hussain vs Jamia Millia Islamia

Click here to read/download the Judgment