A Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has stressed the necessity of ensuring that the selection of students should be made on their academic aptitude, as opposed to their personal connections, wealth, or social status. In light of the same, the Court has observed that private colleges cannot charge higher fees from students admitted through the 10% management quota seats.

The Court observed, "To put it differently, the institutions are not entitled to charge any higher fees from the students admitted through the 10% Management Quota Seats students than the fee being charged from 90% students. Thus, the same fee structure is applicable to both the categories."

Senior Advocate Manoj Goel, among others, appeared for the petitioner side. Counsel Santosh Kumar Tripathi, among others, appeared for the respondent side.

In this case, various private institutions affiliated with Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University moved a set of petitions challenging the validity of 3 circulars issued by the Delhi Government and the varsity. Some petitions were filed by various students seeking admission in the private unaided institutions against the 10% Management Quota seats.

The first circular provided directions from the Government's Directorate of Education to the Vice Chancellor, against 10% Management Seats in private institutions affiliated to the varsity. In the second circular, the University issued directions regarding online registration for Management Quota admissions on its portal and the display of the merit list. The varsity issued the Schedule for Online Registration for Management Seats Admissions for B. Tech through the third circular.

The issue before the Court was that the impugned circulars violated the fundamental right of the private institutions in admitting students against the 10% Management Quota Seats in accordance with Delhi Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee and Other Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence) Act, 2007 and the Rules made thereunder.

The Apex Court observed that the right to establish and administer an institution includes the right to admit students and to set up a reasonable fee structure, but the said right could be regulated to ensure maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere, and infrastructure. In that context, it was said that "the occupation of imparting education was not a business but a profession involving a charitable activity. The State can therefore, forbid the charging of capitation fee and profiteering. The object of setting up of an education institution is not to make profit."

Subsequently, the Court took the view that the regulation of admission in a fair, transparent and nonexploitative manner is the heart and soul of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In furtherance, it was said that "Neither the private institutions nor anyone else would have any grievance with respect to maintaining fairness and transparency and ensuring non-exploitative procedure for admission. If the University displays the information relating to the branch wise and college wise seats of Management Quota, by no stretch of imagination the same can be said to be any restriction on the rights of the private institutions to admit students against the 10% Management Quota".

Commenting on the stand taken by the University and the State Government, it was said that "They unequivocally state that the Circular dated 22.09.2022 does not cast any restriction on the right of the management to admit 10% students under Management Quota. The said Circular only supplements the provisions of the Act 2007 and the Rules made there under, particularly proviso to Section 13 of the Act of 2007 which provides that the Management Quota Seats have to be filled in a transparent manner based on merit at the qualifying examination. In addition to the advertisement being issued by the private institutions as stipulated under the Rules of 2007, if the University also displays information pertaining to the branch wise and college wise seats available under the Management Quota for the benefit of the students at large, the same cannot be said to be a restriction. It would rather be in the interest of the students and of the private institutions to have better choices and to have a larger pool from which the meritorious candidates may be selected. This would bring transparency and obviate allegations against the institutions of backdoor admissions of students under Management Quota through malpractices like nonissuance of forms to prospective candidates".

The Court also reiterated that malpractices, maladministration and non-transparent admission processes are antithetical to Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and in furtherance, observed that "the institutions are not entitled to charge any higher fees from the students admitted through the 10% Management Quota Seats students than the fee being charged from 90% students. Thus, the same fee structure is applicable to both the categories. Therefore, so long as merit is not being diluted by the impugned Circulars, the institutions ideally should not have any grievance. It is not their case that admissions are guided by the paying capacity of the candidates. The institutions are also under an obligation to maintain merit and transparency under the proviso to Section 13 of the Act of 2007".

Further, it noted that the circulars nowhere prescribe any other criteria for judging the merit than the one prescribed under applicable rules or regulations, and nowhere take away the right to admit the students up to sanctioned intake capacity or compel the private institutions to compromise with merit or excellence. In a similar vein, it was observed that "In the matter of admission in educational institutions, merit should be honoured, unless, there is any legally acceptable criterion. Even in the cases of different categories, the inter se merit is always honoured within the same category. Merit based admission is envisaged even for the 10% Management Quota Seats. The merit would only be determinable when all eligible and desirous candidates are properly informed about the admission process. Malpractices and backdoor entry into admissions in professional courses is not unknown in society".

In light of the same, it was observed that "The efforts made by the DHE and the University are only with an aim to ensure that there should be large participation of the students in a fair and transparent manner. The information with respect to seat matrix and counselling etc. must be disseminated to all concerned".

Subsequently, the petitions moved by the private unaided institution were dismissed, while pleas moved by various students who were already admitted against the 10% Management Quota Seats by Maharaja Suraj Mal Institute of Technology but their admission was not ratified, were allowed in part. In that context, the order passed was "instead of treating the admissions made in the Academic Session 2022-2023 as null and void, the 10% Management Quota Seats of the MSIT for the Academic Session 2023-2024 stands reduced to Nil, meaning thereby that the 10% Management Quota Seats shall be filled up by the designated authority as per the procedure to be followed for filling up the remaining 90% seats for the Academic Session 2023-2024. Any advertisement, already issued by MSIT, for admitting students against the 10% Management Quota Seats stands cancelled".

Cause Title: Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies - Technical Campus v. and Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Delhi High CourtJustice Purushaindra Kumar KauravIndraprastha University

Verdictum News Desk