AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Petitioners, who are pursuing the three-year LLB degree course from Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, have preferred the present petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking a direction to the Respondents to allocate the preference of Law Centre as per merit
on the extra seats created for admission to the LLB course after the addition of 301 supernumerary seats by the Respondents in compliance of the
directions of this court in Joginder Kumar Sukhija v. Union of India and Ors. [WP(C) 5118/2017].
The brief facts as emerge from the record are that after the Petitioners were declared successful in the LLB entrance examination conducted by
Respondents No. 1 and 2, they opted for Campus Law Centre (hereinafter referred to as ""CLC"") as their first choice of preference and Law Centre-
I or Law Centre-II (hereinafter referred to as ""LC-I"" or ""LC-II"") as the case maybe, as their second choice of preference. However, when the first
counselling took place between 18.07.2017 to 22.07.2017, they were all offered their second choice of preference on basis of the allotment list issued
on 22.07.2017.
It is the Petitioners' case that the allotment list dated 22.07.2017 was erroneous as all candidates found eligible for first counselling were allotted a
seat irrespective of whether they appeared for the counselling or not, which fact was subsequently admitted by the Respondents No. 1 and 2, who
then undertook to correct the same. Accordingly, a second allotment list was issued on 23.07.2017 wherein the names of eligible candidates who had
not appeared for first counselling, were excluded and the Petitioners were resultantly allotted their first choice of preference i.e. CLC. On 10.08.2017,
the Petitioners attended the orientation programme at CLC and started attending their classes regularly from 11.08.2017 and subsequently also
received their CLC identity and library cards.
After the Petitioners had started attending their classes at CLC, the Respondent No. 1 issued a notice dated 23.08.2017 thereby granting students
who missed the 1st and 2nd round of counselling for admission in the LLB course, another opportunity as a 'one-time option' for admission in the said
course. The interested students were advised to report on 25.08.2017 for the same, though it was clarified that the admission of such students would
be on the basis of their merit in the entrance examination and availability of seats in the law centres. Soon thereafter, the Respondents on 26.08.2017
issued another notice clarifying that all the admissions given till date, were provisional and that the final allocation would be notified on 29.08.2017 only
after correct position of available seats at the three law centres would become available on 28.08.2017, when the admission of ineligible candidates
would stand cancelled. Pursuant thereto, the Respondents issued a new centre allotment list on 01.09.2017 whereby the Petitioners were now
reallocated to their second choice of preference i.e. LC-I/LC-II and those students who were granted admission as a 'one-time option', were
allocated their first choice of preference i.e. CLC.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Respondents, 20 students including the Petitioners herein filed WP(C) 7956/2017 before this Court on
07.09.2017 seeking a direction to restrain the Respondents from changing their college centres as also for quashing of the allotment list dated
01.09.2017. However, during the pendency of the said petition, the Respondent No. 1 issued a notice on 09.09.2017, inviting those students who were
aggrieved by the reallocation of their centres from CLC to LC-I, vide list dated 01.09.2017, to submit a representation to Respondent No. 1 for
redressal of their grievances. Accordingly, all the eligible petitioners, in WP(C) 7956/17, submitted their representations to Respondent No. 1.
It transpires that, this Court, while the Petitioners' above writ petition was pending, vide order dated 26.09.2017 in Joginder Kumar Sukhija v. Union
of India and Ors. [WP(C) 5118/2017], directed the Respondents herein to ensure that besides the 2310 candidates already admitted to the LLB
course for the academic year 2017-18, 301 supernumerary candidates are admitted over and above those 2310 candidates. In compliance of the
aforesaid order, the Respondent No. 1 announced additional admissions by allotting extra seats to each of the three centres and issued a notice dated
28.09.2017 for admission against the 301 supernumerary seats so created. As per the said notice, candidates having the cutoff marks in the LLB
Entrance Test, as prescribed hereunder, were required to report for counselling for the additional seats on 03.10.2017 at the Faculty of Law. At this
stage, it may be noted that about 150 extra seats were allocated to the CLC for admissions to the supernumerary seats. The cut-offs prescribed for
admission against these supernumerary seats was much lower than the cut-off prescribed in the earlier final list dated 01.09.2017 as the admissions
for CLC had closed for the General category at 264 marks, OBC category at 228 marks, SC category at 190 marks and ST category at 148 marks.
The cut off marks prescribed as per notice dated 28.09.2017 reads as under:-
Sl.
No. Category Marks in the LLB
entrance Test
Unreserved 234-230
OBC 194-187
SC 164-153
ST 85-50
 7. It has been averred in the petition that the Respondents, instead of ensuring that admissions of students to the CLC is done purely on the basis of
the last cut-off prescribed in the list dated 01.09.2017, erroneously allotted CLC to students who had now become eligible for admission as a result of
the extra seats created for supernumerary candidates vide their notice dated 28.09.2017. Aggrieved by the action of the Respondents in not following
the merit while making admissions against the 301 seats, due to which they were not allocated CLC, the Petitioners, all of whom had higher marks
than the cut-offs prescribed in the notice dated 28.09.2017, filed an Application before the Division Bench of this Court complaining that the
Respondents were not following merit in making allocation against the supernumerary seats. The Division Bench was, however, of the view that the
Petitioners, who were Applicants in CM 39100/2017, had an independent remedy to challenge the Respondent's action. The Application before the
Division Bench was accordingly withdrawn on 31.10.2017 and in these circumstances, the present petition has been filed.
At this stage, it is pertinent to note that since some of the Petitioners in WP(C) 7956/2017, have already been reallocated to CLC, the remaining
Petitioners have filed the present petition seeking different reliefs and in these circumstances, WP(C) 7956/2017 has not been pressed.
Having set out the facts hereinabove, I may now refer to the rival contentions raised by learned counsels for the parties. Mr. K.C Mittal, learned
counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Respondents, by erroneously allotting CLC only to those students who became eligible for admission in the
LLB course by virtue of creation of extra seats, have caused grave prejudice to the Petitioners for the second time as first they had erroneously
dislocated the Petitioners by granting admission, by way of special counselling, to those students who had not appeared both in the 1st and 2nd round
of counselling. In support of his aforesaid submission, Mr. Mittal contends that the Respondents ought to have first relocated the Petitioners to CLC
as they were erroneously relocated from CLC to the other law centres by the Respondents vide their notice dated 01.09.2017. Mr. Mittal submits that
even though the Petitioners, based on their performance in the entrance examination, had secured higher marks than the cut-off prescribed for
admission to CLC after the creation of extra 301 seats, they were still not offered admission to CLC, which was their first choice of preference.
Mr. Mittal further submits that since eleven Petitioners out of
20, in WP(C) 7956/2017, had been relocated to CLC by the Respondents after the creation of the supernumerary seats, the Petitioners herein are, also
entitled to same relief for relocation to CLC on the basis of principles of equality.
On the other hand, Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, learned counsel for the Respondent, while praying for dismissal of the present petition, submits that
the Petitioners cannot be relocated to CLC at this belated stage as the reallocation of the Law Centres has already attained finality after the
completion of admission process on 31.08.2017 and the second semester has commenced as also the applications for the second semester exams
have already been called for.
Mr. Rupal submits that in order to implement the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Joginder Kumar Sukhija (supra), directing the
Respondents to ensure admission of 2310 candidates as also of 301 supernumerary candidates over and above 2310 candidates, the Respondents had
to make appropriate adjustments for the same by excluding 140 candidates, who had already been admitted against supernumerary seats, due to
which only 152 seats fell vacant. Subsequently, a special counselling for filling the aforesaid vacant seats was held from 05.10.2017. He, thus,
contends that since the special counselling was held only for 152 vacant seats, there was no question of reallocation of Law Centres of those students
like the Petitioners, who had already been admitted before 31.08.2017 as the admission process had become final on 31.08.2017 itself. In support of
his aforesaid contention, Mr. Rupal submits that the reallocation of all students pursuant to those additional admissions in October, would have
disturbed hundreds of students in all the three Law Centres, which was not found to be prudent as the students themselves had got settled in the two
months period and there was no further demand from the students for re-allocation of centres except the Petitioners herein. He further submits that
even otherwise, the Respondents had earlier, vide their notice dated 23.08.2017 upon the request of several students, invited applications from all
students seeking reallocation of centres as a 'one-time' option, in response whereto, only Petitioner No.1-Aradhya Singh had applied for the
reallocation. He, thus, contends that since the Petitioners failed to avail the aforesaid opportunity, they cannot now claim relocation to CLC at this
stage when there are no longer any vacancies/seats available in the CLC.
Mr. Rupal submits that even WP(C) 7956/2017 preferred by 20 students including the Petitioners herein, has become infructuous by efflux of time
and in light of the order passed by this Court in Farhan Jahan v. University of Delhi [WP(C) 6695/17] wherein another opportunity for counselling
was given to the candidates who had missed their earlier counselling. He further submits that the Petitioner No.1-Aradhya Singh was pursuing LLB
only as a stop gap arrangement and was not all serious to carve out a profession in law and thus, contends that there is no reason as to why his prayer
for reallocation should be accepted.
 14. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, I find that the sole issue arising in the present case is as to whether
upon availability of 152 supernumerary seats pursuant to the directions of the Division Bench of this court vide order dated 28.09.2017, it was
incumbent upon the Respondents to fill the same by considering the merit of all the eligible students or on the basis of inter se merit of only those who
had become eligible upon lowering of the cut-offs pursuant to the availability of 150 additional seats. While the Petitioners would contend that 'merit'
would mean the 'inter se merit' of all eligible students, and not merely of those who had become eligible due to lowering of the cut-offs, the
Respondents while justifying their impugned action, would contend that the inter se merit of only those who became eligible after 28.09.2017, was to
be considered.
Having given my thoughtful consideration, I find that there is no denial to the fact that the marks obtained by all the Petitioners were more than the
cut-off prescribed for admission to CLC vide notice dated 28.09.2017 and for which 152 seats, a counselling was held on 03.10.2017. There is also no
denial to the fact that on 28.09.2017 and even on 03.10.2017, the Petitioners' claim for seeking reallocation to CLC from where they had been already
moved upon entry of students inducted pursuant to the Special Counselling, was also pending adjudication before this court by way of WP(C)
7956/2017.
In these circumstances, when Petitioners' claim for their reallocation was pending consideration before this Court, I am unable to fathom the
reasoning expounded by the Respondents for depriving the Petitioners of their right to be allocated to CLC on basis of their merit in the Common
Entrance Test. There is absolutely no merit in the plea of the Respondents that the direction of the Division Bench to grant admission to eligible
candidates on basis of merit, would mean the inter se merit of candidates who became eligible for admission pursuant to lowering of cut-off marks as
announced vide notice dated 28.09.2017. This approach of the Respondents would be clearly violative of the 'Rule of Merit', which has to be
scrupulously followed while allocating Law Centres to students. This arbitrary action of the Respondents has resulted in a wholly unacceptable
situation where the Petitioners, despite having marks higher than the cut-offs prescribed vide notice dated 28.09.2017, have been deprived of
admission to CLC, which centre was admittedly always their first preference.
The only reason given by the Respondents not to follow the 'Rule of Merit' being that this reallocation on the basis of the merit of students, who
had been studying in different centres, would have created chaos, needs to be noted only to be rejected. In my considered opinion, however
cumbersome the administrative process would be, it cannot entail upon itself a higher pedestal than that of merit. Once additional vacancies were
created, they ought to have been filled on merit and merit alone, rather than by confining the same to students, who were much lower in merit and
could not even get admission in the process which had initially concluded on
31.08.2017.
I am fortified in my aforesaid view by the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asha v. Pt. B. D Sharma University of Health Sciences
& ors. [(2012) 7 SCC 389], wherein the Court had, while dealing with admission to medical colleges after framing of a specific question ""Is there any
exception to the principle of strict adherence to the Rule of Merit for preference of courses and colleges regarding any admission to such courses?"",
held that the Rule of Merit has to be strictly followed by holding that ""The rule of merit for preference of courses and colleges admits to exception. It
is an absolute rule and all stakeholders and concerned authorities are required to follow this rule strictly and without demur.
I also find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the Respondents that all the three law centres, located in the North Campus within
a distance of 500 metres from one another, are at par since they have same course curriculum, same exam and same case materials. In my
considered view, even if all the three centres are having the same curriculum and exams, it does not mean that their rankings are similar or that the
Petitioners who possess the merit for being granted admission in CLC, should be deemed the same only because of some perceived administrative
chaos on the part of the Respondents.
Before I conclude, I may note that after arguments had been heard at some length, learned counsel for Respondents had initially taken time to
obtain instructions as to whether all the seven Petitioners could be reallocated to CLC atleast in the next semester. However subsequently, this Court
was informed that the Respondents were unwilling to reallocate the Petitioners to CLC and therefore, the Petition was heard on merits.
For all the aforesaid reasons, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the present Writ Petition is liable to succeed. However, keeping
in view that except seven Petitioners, no other students have sought reallocation to CLC, at this stage no direction to reallocate all eligible candidates
to CLC, is warranted. The relief for reallocation of students to CLC, as per their merit, is, in the peculiar facts, being confined to the seven Petitioners
alone and Respondents are directed to reallocate all the seven Petitioners to CLC in the next semester i.e. in the IIIrd semester beginning in July,
2018.
It is, however, clarified that this order is being passed in the peculiar facts of the present case and the same will not be treated as a precedent.
The Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.