Aakansha vs Guru Gobind Indraprastha University and Others

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.—The petitioner claims a mandatory direction to the respondent University i.e. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha

University (hereafter ''the University'') to fill a vacancy in the Master of Business Administration (hereafter referred to as ''MBA course''), from

amongst the unfilled seats available in the University and its affiliated institutions.

The petitioner applied for admission to the MBA course. The University issued admission brochures on 7th March, 2007 for the Academic

session 2007- 2008. The brochure prescribed the procedure for filling seats in the University managed as well as the University affiliated

institutions. A Common Entrance test (CET) was contemplated and held under Chapter 9; this was followed by a counseling procedure, described

in Chapter 10. The counselling was in two sessions, each providing opportunity for specified categories of candidates/students with different

rankings on various dates. Those unsuccessful in the first round of counseling were entitled to participate in the second round of counseling. The

second round of counseling by the designated authority of the University ended on 30/31st July, 2007. According to the Brochure of the

University, there were 700 seats in the MBA courses offered by the institutions affiliated with the University. The fourth respondent College had an

intake of 120 seats. The petitioner was ranked 2437 in the common entrance test (CET). She attended both counseling sessions but was unable to

obtain admission. It is averred that despite the completion of counseling, one vacancy existed in the fourth respondent College. The petitioner relies

upon letters exchanged between the said College and the University, dated 9.8.2007 and 29.8.2007. The College had reported a vacancy on

9.8.2007 but the University, in its letter stated that no admission was permissible after second counseling. It is averred that this was communicated

to the petitioner by letter dated 7.9.2007.

The petitioner contends that the University, in order to fill seats in some courses, including Master of Business Administration (MBA), LL.B. and

Bachelor of Journalism, (after second counseling had ended in the end of July 2007) nevertheless held an ''extended second counseling session'' on

12th August, 2007. By this process, the respondent University sought to admit students with rankings beyond 3000, in those courses. Particular

reliance had been placed upon the second extended counseling session for the MBA programme which took place on 12th August, 2007. The

petitioner was unaware of it. It was lastly urged that this Court should adopt an equitable approach. Counsel commended the order of the

Supreme Court dated 23.9.2005 in is Nos.90 and 96 (in WP 350/93) i.e. Islamic Academy of education v. State of Karnataka, where the Court

permitted filling of various ''left over'' seats though admission through counseling had ended.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the University acted in an arbitrary and whimsical manner in picking and choosing between

candidates who participated in a common entrance test. It was contended that once the University realized that vacancies existed in the MBA

course, it should have adopted a uniform approach and procedure by applying a same yard stick and fairly carried out the extended counselling

session, to all left over candidates. By singling out only those with ranking beyond 3000 in the CET, where vacancies existed, the University acted

in discriminatory manner. This has caused grave prejudice to the candidates.

It was contended that in the absence of a cut off date for admission, there was no legal or statutory impediment for filling up the unfilled seats.

Learned Counsel submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench in Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Technology v. G.G. Singh I.P. University

2005 III AD (Delhi) 14 was based on a brochure where the University had indicated a cut-off date. Here there is no cut-off date; hence the vacant

MBA seats, can be filled.

It was submitted that if the University holds a proper extended second counseling even today, it would be acting in a fair and non-discriminatory

manner and sub-serving the larger objective of education. It would also ensure that seats in such courses, which are valuable resources, do not go

waste.

The university, in its counter affidavit, avers that Second counseling two held by it from 23.7.2007 to 28.7.2007. At the end of second

counseling there were 34 vacancies in Part-Time MBA course, in the Delhi General category. The second extended counseling session was held

on 12.8.2007. The authorities, it is averred did not turn away anyone on the ground of their possessing better ranking than rank 3000 onwards.

Such candidates could be considered the second extended counseling for the 34 part-time MBA seats, held on 12.8.2007, in turn of Clause 6(iii)

of the Brochure.

Mr. G.D. Goel, learned Counsel appeared for the respondent University. He contended that the second extended counseling conducted for the

MBA, and two other courses were due to peculiar facts. Even there, the counseling ended on 12-8-2007 and admissions ended soon thereafter.

The University cannot permit the admission process to be open ended. Counsel submitted that instructions/classes in the courses to which the

Petitioners applied, started on 1-8-2007. Therefore the Petitioners cannot claim a right to admission, nor seek a direction that another counseling

session should be held. It was also submitted that the vacancies in the fourth respondent were reported by it, after second and the extended

second counseling by letter dated 16.8.2007. They arose because the students assigned those seats did not report to the College, and the seats

Therefore fell vacant.

Learned Counsel also relied on the following extract of the University''s Admission Brochure:

(xi) After the Second Counselling is over and the admissions are made by the University there will be no Third Counselling and no admission will

be made by the University or the Institutes thereafter.

xii) IT IS MADE AMPLY CLEAR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CANDIDATES THAT ANY ADMISSION MADE DIRECTLY BY ANY

INSTITUTE/COLLEGE WILL BE CONSIDERED ILLEGAL AND UNAUTHORIZED AND UNIVERSITY WILL NOT ISSUE ANY

ENROLLMENT NUMBER TO ANY SUCH CANDIDATE(S) ALSO. UNIVERSITY WILL NOT CONDUCT ANY EXAMINATION IN

RESPECT OF SUCH CANDIDATES. STUDENTS AND PARENTS WILL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE IF THEY TAKE ADMISSION

IN ANY AFFILIATED COLLEGE/INSTITUTE DIRECTLY.

xiii) The list of students on close of admissions after the second counselling shall be treated as final list of admissions and the same shall be

displayed on the website of the University (www.ipu.ac.in).

xiv) The Academic Session would commence w.e.f. Aught 1, 2007. All the candidates who get admission in First/Second Counselling must report

to their respective institutes/University Schools either on 1st August, 2007 or on the following day of the admission, whichever is later. Note: It

may be noted that students taking admission in any of the programs/Institutes will also be bound to abide by the provisions of Guru Gobind Singh

Indraprastha University Act, 1998 as well as Statues. Ordinances and Regulations framed there-under.

The Petitioner in this case participated in the admission procedure held for filling seats in the MBA course offered by the University or its

affiliated colleges. She was unsuccessful in securing admission, though she participated in two counseling sessions. Her grievance today is that the

University held an extended second counseling session on 12-8-2007 for the MBA course, but she could not participate in it.

The University is essentially an academic Institution setting standards for its affiliating institutions and colleges in the areas it is traditionally

expected to. The areas include eligibility for admission, standards of admission, syllabi for various courses, recruitment policies, examination

policies etc. In the exercise of its powers, the University prescribed the procedure for filling seats in all the courses. Candidates desiring admission

had to appear in a CET, and depending on their ranking, participate in counseling. Counseling is a well-established procedure conforming to

fairness. It perhaps gives best charges in a fair manner, to every candidate for electing the course or the institution of her or his choice. The

guidelines for counseling sessions are formulated by the University or the designated academic Body.

The system of counseling and the basic principles of fairness underlying the procedure was designated by the Supreme Court in the judgment

reported as Rajiv Mittal v. Maharishi Dayanand University 1998 (2) SCC 406, in the following terms:

The system of counselling for the purpose of granting admission to the various medical colleges in the State is now regarded as a most equitable

one where options are given of various seats to the students in accordance with their overall merit position in the combined entrance examination is

competitive in nature.

If as a result of first counseling, all the seats, which are available, are filled then no further counseling takes place. Where however some seats

become available, then it appears that second, third or if the need arises fourth counselling does take place but in such a manner that normally there

should be no delay into commencement of the course of study. furthermore unless and until counseling takes place, no candidate who has been

granted admission on the basis of the counselling is allowed to change his college merely because a seat in another college has fallen vacant. The

seats, if any, which fall vacant, can only be filled if and when counselling takes place where the candidates who have already been selected may

have an option of shifting to another college. An appropriate analogy of this system is that of a booking chart for a dramatic performance which has

to take place in the future. The people standing in the queue reserve or book their seats out of those which are available according to their

preference. Once the chart fills up the booking closes. Only sometimes, if tickets are returned they may be re-issued. But once the dramatic

performance starts no one is allowed to enter. Similarly counseling for seats to medical colleges must stop once the courses of study commence.

Here, the University prescribed two rounds of counseling. Admittedly, the second round of counseling in the case commenced on 23.7.2007

and ended on the 28th July, 2007. The Petitioner could not secure admission. A joint reading of Chapter 10(ii) and (ix) and (xii), shows that the

intention of the University that there can be no third round of counseling and that there is a closure as far as admissions are concerned, when the

second round of counseling ends. The University''s response about extended round of counseling, i.e. that it pertained to 34 seats in a part-time

MBA course, and that all eligible, - not merely those with rankings beyond 3000-cannot be brushed aside. It is certainly not unreasonable. Also,

the fourth respondent''s letter to the University of 16.8.2007 shows that vacancies arose due to the students not reporting after admission.

There is now some authority for the proposition that public or State agencies are bound by norms - be in the form of guidelines, circulars or

notifications - which regulate and govern their functioning. These could be of statutory nature or non-statutory instructions, guidelines or circulars;

they bind the maker i.e the public authority or State agency. (Ref Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India and Others,

; B.S. Minhas Vs. Indian Statistical Institute and Others, In this case, rules of admission were prescribed in the brochure and made known to all.

That the University for some reasons accommodated an extended second round of counseling for some part-time seats to my mind cannot be a

ground to compel it to disregard the rules contained in the brochure. They categorically mandate that no third counseling or further admission

procedure is permissible and that the list of students on the close of admissions after second counseling shall be treated as final list of admissions.

The object of all admission procedures undoubtedly is to ensure that seats are filled because such educational opportunities are valuable

resources in a field where demand always outstrips supply. Yet, the public interest element of ensuring that such seats should not be wasted (or

allowed to lapse) is to be balanced with another important public interest in maintaining certain academic standards. There should be finality for the

entire admission process failing which there would be uncertainty and from the late entrants'' perspective, loss of attendance.

I am not persuaded by the submission that absence of a last date for admission can impel this Court to fill such ''left over'' seats. The order of

the Supreme Court, quoted on behalf of the petitioner cannot be considered as a declaration of law; rather it appears to have been made to sense

the ends of justice in that case, under Article 142 of the Constitution, the contention that the judgment in Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Technology

of this Court does not apply, as it was in the context of a cut-off date, cannot be accepted. The court held as follows:

The system of counselling itself is designed to maximize allocation of seats in various institutions. However, that cannot imply that the process is

endless; it has a definite terminus qyo in point of time. In the present case, the date of commencement of classes was 2.8.2004 In spite of this, the

second round of counselling was envisaged and that terminated on 28.8.2004 This fact is essential while considering the challenge to the

reasonableness of the impugned condition. It shows that outer limit of acceptability of student''s absence from class after they commenced in the

first term was about four weeks. Another aspect of the matter is that the prohibition from filling vacant seats after the second counselling, appears

to be dictated by certain policy considerations. The permissibility of a further round would mean that there would be further drop outs from other

institutions leading to complaints by them and uncertainty in the admission process, as described in the judgment quoted above. Such an uncertainty

at the commencement of the academic year itself, in our opinion, is unacceptable.

In view of the above findings, this petition has to fail; it is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.