P. Uma vs Delhi University and Another

V.K. Jain, J.—The petitioner before this Court applied for admission to the B.Ed. Course, 2013 in the Department of Education of Delhi University. As per the eligibility conditions stipulated by the University, the candidates who had appeared for the final year examination of any of the qualifying examinations, were eligible for admission to the said Course on a provisional basis, subject to their submitting the mark-sheet of the said examination within one week from the date of admission, but not later than 31.7.2013. The petitioner, who had appeared in final year examination for B.A. Programme of Delhi University, got his result only on 31.7.2013. The said result, according to the petitioner, was uploaded on the website of the Delhi University at 6 pm on that date. The petitioner, however, could not submit the mark sheet of the said examination to the university on 31.7.2013. When she visited the university on 1.8.2013 alongwith the marksheet, she was informed that the provisional admission granted to her has already been cancelled. It would be pertinent to note here that the mark sheet was downloaded by the petitioner from the website of the university on 1.8.2013. Being aggrieved from the cancellation of her admission, the petitioner is before this court seeking the following reliefs:

a. issue a writ in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the order cancelling the provisional admission and refusing to regularize the provisional admission of the petitioner in Bachelor of Education course being conducted by the respondent no. 2;

b. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondents to regularize the provisional admission granted to the petitioner in Bachelor of Education.

In its counter affidavit, the respondent-Delhi University has not disputed the facts as stated hereinbefore, but has drawn the attention of the Court to the prospectus which inter alia stipulated that provisional certificate and necessary mark-sheet of the required qualifications would have to be submitted within one week from the date of admission, but not later than 31.7.2013. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that in order to facilitate submission of the mark-sheets on 31.7.2013, the office was kept open till 8 pm on that date and other students, whose result was declared on that very date, duly submitted their respective mark-sheets at that time.

In my view, since the university had stipulated 31.7.2013 as the last date for submission of the mark-sheets of the qualifying examination, it ought to have declared the result of the qualifying examination, at least a few days before the aforesaid last date for submission of the mark-sheets of the qualifying examination. To declare the result of the qualifying examination and expect the students to submit the mark-sheet, after downloading it from the website of the university on the same very day, in my view, was an unreasonable condition imposed by the university. In fact, before fixing the last date for submission of the mark-sheet of the qualifying examination, the university ought to have ensured that the result of all the qualifying examination shall be declared by it prior to 31.7.2013 so that the candidates who are granted admission on provisional basis have no difficulty in submitting their mark-sheet by the stipulated date.

Admittedly, the results were uploaded on the website of the university at 6 pm on 31.7.2013. The students were required first to download their mark-sheets from the website of the university and then submit the same. The students obviously would not be aware that the office of the university would be kept open till 8 pm on 31.7.2013 in order to enable them to submit their mark-sheets. No public notice was issued by the university inviting the students that the result would be declared on 31.7.2013 and the office of the university will be kept open till 8 pm on that date in order to enable them to submit the mark-sheets. In the absence of a public notice in this regard, the candidates could not be expected to visit the office of the university after officer hours on 31.7.2013 to submit their mark-sheets. There may be many students who were more vigilant than the petitioner in the sense that they made enquiries from the office of the university and on coming to know that the office would be kept upon till 8 pm, submitted the mark-sheet on the very same date, but to expect such extra-vigilance on the part of all the candidates would be unreasonable. The university, in my view, ought to have accepted the mark-sheets within a reasonable time after declaration of the results and insisting upon the deadline stipulated in the prospectus in this regard would be unreasonable when the university itself did not declare the result before 6 pm on 31.7.2013. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order cancelling the provisional admission for the petitioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to admission in B.Ed. Course on a regular basis.

There shall be no orders as to costs.

Dasti.