Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. Amit Bansal & Ms. Senjul Khanna, Advs.
  • Mr. Sunil Goel with Mr. Susheel Bhartiya, Advs. for R-1.
  • Mr. Saurabh Banerjee, Adv. for R-2.
  • Mr. R.K Singh, Adv. for R-3.
Judges
  • Chief Justice
  • Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. Amit Bansal & Ms. Senjul Khanna, Advs.
  • Mr. Sunil Goel with Mr. Susheel Bhartiya, Advs. for R-1.
  • Mr. Saurabh Banerjee, Adv. for R-2.
  • Mr. R.K Singh, Adv. for R-3.
Judges
  • Chief Justice
  • Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

This intra-court appeal challenges the judgment dated 25 August 2014 of a learned Single Judge allowing W.P. (C) No. 4415/2014 filed by the respondent No. 1 (writ petitioner). The writ petition had sought a direction to the appellant college and the University of Delhi (respondent No. 2) to admit the writ petitioner to the B.Com (H) undergraduate course for the academic year 2014-15.

Facts as set out in the opinion: the writ petitioner originally had 95.50% aggregate (best-of-four including English) as per CBSE (respondent No. 3) results declared 29 May 2014. Dissatisfied with his English marks, he applied for verification, then for a photocopy of the answer sheet, and subsequently for re-evaluation under CBSE rules. Meanwhile, university admissions began; the petitioner applied to the appellant college on the basis of 95.50% but the college's first and second cut-offs for B.Com (H) (1 July and 4 July 2014) were higher (97.50% and 97.25% respectively) and he was not eligible. He was admitted to Hindu College (another college) on the basis of 95.50%.

CBSE informed the petitioner on 10 July 2014 that his English Core marks increased in re-evaluation from 87 to 95, raising his aggregate to 97.50%. He approached the appellant college on 11 July 2014 but was denied admission because the college had closed admissions. The Single Judge granted relief directing the appellant college to admit the petitioner forthwith (if necessary by creating a supernumerary seat) and directed the University to facilitate the same. The Single Judge also directed CBSE and the University to meet to ensure re-evaluated marks are taken into account in subsequent years.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether a student whose marks are increased upon re-evaluation (after a college has closed admissions but before the University’s last cut-off date) is entitled to admission to the desired college on the basis of the re-evaluated marks.
  2. Whether a college can be directed to admit such a student even by creating a supernumerary seat or admitting beyond its sanctioned intake, and whether such a direction violates the University's admission schedule or UGC financing constraints.
  3. What is the proper interpretation of the undertaking referred to in Jainidh Kaur v. St. Stephen's College — specifically, whether the "last cut-off date" in that undertaking refers to the cut-off date fixed by the University (University-wide schedule) or to the cut-off date of an individual college.
  4. Whether allowing admission on the basis of re-evaluated marks will unacceptably delay or perpetually extend the admission process and thereby impede commencement of the academic session.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant College's Arguments

  • The Single Judge's direction violates the University's admission schedule.
  • The college cannot be directed to admit students beyond its maximum capacity because UGC funding is tied to sanctioned intake; creating a supernumerary seat would upset the college's finances.
  • The undertaking in Jainidh Kaur was limited to admitting students only till the last cut-off date of the individual college; the last cut-off date for the appellant college was 7 July 2014, and the petitioner applied after that date.
  • The Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Mandeep Kang v. Punjab University (2000) held that the last date for considering eligibility for admission is the cut-off date stipulated for admission (i.e., reliance that cut-off is firm).
  • The petitioner has already secured admission in another college (Hindu College), so he is not left without admission; thus relief should be denied.
  • Allowing such relief could make admissions an endless process, delaying commencement of the academic session; reliance placed on U.P. Public Service Commission v. Alpana (1994) 2 SCC 723.

Respondent No. 1 (Writ Petitioner) — Arguments

  • Supported the Single Judge's judgment and its reasoning that re-evaluation cannot be an exercise in futility.
  • Contended that Mandeep Kang (Punjab & Haryana High Court) itself carves out an exception for students with re-evaluated marks (specifically para 7 of that decision).

Respondent No. 2 (University of Delhi) — Position in Proceedings

  • The University's counsel appeared on advance notice; on enquiry the University stated it was in the process of deciding whether to challenge the impugned judgment (i.e., no active grievance was pressed at the hearing of this appeal).

Respondent No. 3 (CBSE) — Position in Proceedings

  • CBSE's counsel supported the writ petitioner.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences (2012) 7 SCC 389 Holds that even a strict cut-off date for entrance to professional colleges can be waived in certain circumstances when enforcement would completely ruin the professional career of a meritorious candidate. The Single Judge relied on this authority to support discretionary relief where delay in release of re-evaluated marks would otherwise defeat the student's chances; this Court adhered to that approach in affirming the Single Judge's reasoning.
U.P. Public Service Commission v. Alpana (1994) 2 SCC 723 Cited by the appellant to show that permitting post-deadline adjustments can make selection/admission processes endless and delay commencement. The Court noted the appellant's reliance but rejected the contention that the Single Judge's order would create an endless admission process, explaining that the Single Judge's relief was bounded by the University's last cut-off date for that academic year.
Jainidh Kaur v. St. Stephen's College Records an undertaking by the University to admit students who produce re-evaluated marks up to the last cut-off date "irrespective of availability of seat". The Court interpreted this undertaking to refer to the University-prescribed last cut-off date (not the individual college cut-off), and relied on that interpretation to uphold the Single Judge's direction that re-evaluated marks must be considered up to the University cut-off date.
Mandeep Kang v. Punjab University (2000) 126(3) PLR 153 (Punjab & Haryana HC) Stated by the appellant to lay down that the last date for considering eligibility is the stipulated cut-off date for admission. The Court observed that Mandeep Kang itself carves out an exception for re-evaluated marks (para 7), and therefore the appellant's reliance on it as an absolute bar was misplaced.
Deepa v. Maharishi Dayanand University (DB) One of several High Court decisions reflecting a consistent view concerning the effect of re-evaluation on admissions. The Court cited this decision as part of a body of High Court authorities supporting the proposition that re-evaluation should not be rendered futile for admission purposes.
Apurav Chandel v. State of H.P. (DB) Another High Court decision aligned with the view that re-evaluated marks should be considered for admissions in appropriate circumstances. Cited as part of a consistent line of High Court authorities endorsing the Single Judge's approach.
Rajendrakumar Chandrakant Nadkarni v. University of Bombay; affirmed in Yudhvir Singh v. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University High Court decisions addressing the effect of re-evaluation and admissions. Cited as contributing to the consistent view that re-evaluation results can be given effect for admissions.
Ku. Sadhana v. Vikram University, Ujjain (DB) High Court decision in the same vein regarding re-evaluation and admissions. Included among authorities showing a consistent approach favorable to considering re-evaluated marks.
Anjay Bansal v. Bangalore University One more High Court decision cited to show consistency of approach. Relied on as part of the supporting body of High Court jurisprudence.
Fateh Kumari Sisodia v. State of Rajasthan High Court authority on related admission/re-evaluation issues. Cited to demonstrate consistent decisions across High Courts.
Shatrudhan Upadhaya v. Union of India (DB) Another DB decision referenced in the aggregate authority supporting the Court's approach. Used to show the weight of judicial decisions favoring the efficacy of re-evaluation in admission contexts.
University of Kerala v. Sandhya P. Pai (DB) Discusses effects of delays in re-evaluation and contains a useful discussion on the relationship between universities and students. The Court noted it is not directly concerned with the precise issue in this case but is generally relevant and supportive of addressing delays in re-evaluation constructively.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court reviewed the facts and arguments and expressly agreed with the Single Judge's reasoning. The principal strands of the Court's reasoning, drawn from the text of the opinion, are:

  1. The Court accepted that no fault could be attributed to the writ petitioner — he had pursued CBSE's processes for verification, photocopy and re-evaluation promptly and without delay.
  2. The Court noted that the delay (if any) that prevented earlier knowledge of the re-evaluated result was attributable to CBSE, and that had the re-evaluation result been available earlier the petitioner would have been eligible and admitted in the normal course.
  3. The Court endorsed the Single Judge's core principle that "re-evaluation cannot be an exercise in futility" — i.e., the process of re-evaluation must have practical effect and students should be able to benefit from increases in marks arising from re-evaluation.
  4. The Court considered and applied the undertaking given in Jainidh Kaur (that the University would admit students who produce re-evaluated marks till the last cut-off date "irrespective of availability of seat") and interpreted the "last cut-off date" as referring to the University-prescribed last cut-off date (not individual college cut-off dates). The Court reasoned that if the undertaking referred only to individual college cut-offs, the phrase "irrespective of availability of seat" would be unnecessary.
  5. The Court found that the petitioner had approached the appellant college and the University before the University-prescribed last cut-off date (which for the academic year in question was 29 July 2014). Therefore, the Single Judge's direction that admission on the basis of re-evaluated marks could not be denied until that date was correct and bounded in time.
  6. With regard to administrative and financial concerns (UGC funding, college capacity, risk of endless admissions), the Court held that for the academic year before it the last date had passed and therefore there was no open-ended risk; for future years the Single Judge had directed CBSE and the University to meet and devise a mechanism, and the Court expressed confidence that the Vice Chancellor and CBSE Chairman would address cross-board issues as well.
  7. The Court reviewed other High Court decisions and noted a consistent view across several authorities in favour of the practical efficacy of re-evaluation in admission contexts; it regarded the Single Judge's decision as consonant with that body of authority.
  8. Accordingly, the Court rejected the appellant's arguments relating to strict adherence to college cut-offs, UGC funding difficulties, and the risk of indefinite admissions, and found no merit in the appeal.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Direct effect on the parties (as stated in the opinion):

  • The Single Judge's direction stands: the appellant college is required to grant admission to the respondent No. 1 (writ petitioner) in the B.Com (H) course for the academic year 2014-15 forthwith, if required by creating a supernumerary seat.
  • The respondent No. 2 University is directed to give effect to admissions on the basis of re-evaluated marks up to the University-prescribed last cut-off date (29 July 2014 in that academic year), consistent with the undertaking recorded in Jainidh Kaur.
  • The Court also left in place the Single Judge's direction that the Chairman of CBSE should meet the Vice Chancellor of the University to ensure that, for future academic years, re-evaluated marks are taken into account while granting admissions to University colleges and that an appropriate mechanism is devised to deal with cross-board issues.

Broader implications noted by the Court (as given in the opinion):

  • The judgment aligns with a consistent view across several High Court decisions that re-evaluation should not be an exercise in futility — students must be able to benefit from increases in marks resulting from re-evaluation in admission processes.
  • The Court addressed administrative concerns but did not accept that the Single Judge's order would cause an open-ended extension of admissions, emphasizing that the relief granted was bounded by the University's last cut-off date for the year in question and that procedural mechanisms can be devised for the future.

Note: The summary above strictly reflects the positions, reasoning and directions contained in the provided opinion. No information has been added beyond what appears in the opinion.

Show full summary ...

    Shri Ram College Of Commerce v. Sunny Goel & Ors. S

    RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

    1. This intra-court appeal impugns the judgment dated 25th August, 2014 of the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing W.P(C) No. 4415/2014 filed by the respondent No. 1 herein.

    2. The counsel for the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner and the counsel for the respondent No. 2 University of Delhi and the counsel for the respondent no. 3 Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) appeared on advance notice and with the consent of the counsels, we heard the appeal finally and reserved judgment.

    3. The writ petition from which this appeal arises was filed seeking a direction to the appellant College and the respondent No. 2 University to give admission to the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner in the undergraduate course of B.Com (H) in the appellant College in the academic year 2014-15. It is inter alia the case of the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner:

    (a) that as per the result declared by the respondent no. 3 CBSE on 29 May, 2014 of the Higher Secondary examination (Class XII), the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner had secured 95.50% aggregate marks in the best of four subjects including English;

    (b) that the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner being not satisfied with the marks given to him in the subject of English, in accordance with the rules of the respondent no. 3 CBSE, applied for verification (re-totaling) of marks, then for obtaining photocopy of his answer sheet and thereafter for re-evaluation of answer sheet;

    (c) that in the meanwhile, the admission process in the respondent No. 2 University for the academic session 2014-15 began and the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner applied on the basis of the 95.50% marks secured by him, filling up the first choice, for the appellant College;

    (d) that on 1st July, 2014, the first cut-off list for admissions was declared and the appellant College declared a cut-off of 97.50% for B.Com (H) for the General Category - the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner having 95.50% marks was thus not eligible for admission to the appellant College;

    (e) that the appellant College, in the second cut-off list declared on 4 July, 2014, declared a cut-off of 97.25% for admission to B.Com

    (H) for the General Category students - the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner having 95.50% marks was still not eligible;

    (f) that the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner on the basis of 95.50% marks was admitted to the B.Com (H) course/programme in Hindu College of the respondent No. 2 University;

    (g) that the respondent no. 3 CBSE vide its letter dated 10 July, 2014 informed the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner of increase in his marks in the subject of English Core in re-evaluation, from 87% to 95%, thereby taking the aggregate marks of the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner to 97.50%;

    (h) that the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner on 11 July, 2014 itself approached the appellant College for admission but was denied, for the reason of the appellant College having closed the admissions.

    4. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and has directed the appellant College to forthwith grant admission to the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner in the B.Com (H) course for the academic year 2014-15, if required, by creating a supernumerary seat; a direction in this regard has been given to the respondent No. 2 University also, reasoning:

    (i) that no fault could be attributed to the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner as he had pursued his rights and legal remedies without any delay;

    (ii) that had there been no delay on the part of the respondent no. 3 CBSE in releasing the result of re-evaluation whereby the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner's marks in the subject of English were increased, the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner would have been admitted in the B.Com (H) course in the appellant College in the normal course as his marks are more than the cut-off;

    (iii) that if the argument of the appellant College and the respondent No. 2 University, of no admission upon closure thereof being possible, were to be accepted, the entire exercise of re-evaluation would lose its significance and meaning - re-evaluation could not be made an exercise in futility - it has to have some significance and import—after all a student applies for re-evaluation not just for statistical reasons but to take benefit of the increase in marks, if any;

    (iv) reliance was placed on Asha v. Pt. B.D Sharma University of Health Sciences (2012) 7 SCC 389 where even the strict cut-off date stipulated for entrance to medical colleges was held capable of being waived in certain circumstances when it would result in complete ruining of the professional career of a meritorious candidate;

    (v) that the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner till the last cut-off date for admission had expired could not be denied the logical consequence of increase in marks upon re-evaluation;

    (vi) that the respondent no. 2 University in Jainidh Kaur v. St. Stephen's College had undertaken before the Court to admit all students, even if they produce their marks after re-evaluation, till the last cut-off date, irrespective of the availability of seats;

    (vii) that the argument of the appellant College and the respondent No. 2 University, that the cut-off date referred to in the undertaking given in Jainidh Kaur (supra) referred to the cut-off date of a particular course of a particular college and not to cut-off date stipulated by the respondent No. 2 University was not correct and the appellant College and the respondent No. 2 University could not be permitted to treat the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner differently.

    However keeping in view the fact that the overwhelming majority of the students admitted to the respondent no. 2 University belong to the CBSE Board, the learned Single Judge directed the Chairman, CBSE to have a meeting with the Vice Chancellor of the respondent No. 2 University to ensure that from the next academic year, students' re-evaluated marks are taken into account while granting admission to colleges of the respondent No. 2 University.

    5. The contentions of the counsel for the appellant College are:

    (A) that the direction of the learned Single Judge is violative of the Schedule of admission laid down by the respondent No. 2 University;

    (B) that the appellant College cannot be directed to admit students beyond its maximum capacity; the University Grants Commission (UGC) releases funds to colleges as per their maximum intake capacity of students and the creation of supernumerary seat as directed by the learned Single Judge would upset the finances of the appellant College;

    (C) that the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the undertaking given by the respondent no. 2 University in Jainidh Kaur (supra) is misplaced as the said undertaking was only to admit students till the last cut-off date; the last cut-off date for admission to the appellant College was 7 July, 2014 and the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner had approached with re-evaluated marks thereafter;

    (D) that the learned Single Judge erred in not following the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Mandeep Kang v. Punjab University (2000) 126(3) PLR 153 laying down that the last date for considering eligibility of a student for admission is the cut-off date stipulated for admission;

    (E) that it is not as if the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner has not been admitted to any college; he has already taken admission to the B.Com (H) course/programme in Hindu College of the respondent No. 2 University;

    (F) apprehensions are expressed that the judgment of the learned Single Judge, if allowed to become a precedent, would make admissions an endless exercise, delaying the commencement of the academic session; reliance is placed on U.P Public Service Commission v. Alpana (1994) 2 SCC 723.

    6. We have put to the counsel for the appellant that the Schedule of admission, which the judgment of the learned Single Judge is argued to be violating, has been fixed by the respondent No. 2 University only and the respondent No. 2 University having not made any grievance with respect to the judgment, the appellant College has nothing to worry. On enquiry, the counsel for the respondent No. 2 University states that the University is in the process of deciding whether to challenge the impugned judgment.

    7. The counsel for the respondent no. 3 CBSE supports the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner.

    8. The counsel for the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner besides supporting the judgment of the learned Single Judge has contended that the judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Mandeep Kang (supra), in para no. 7 thereof also carves out an exception qua re-evaluated marks.

    9. We have considered the rival contentions. We agree in entirety with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge and particularly the reasoning of ‘re-evaluation cannot be an exercise in futility’. We may also add that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is in consonance with the consistent view of other High Courts in i) Deepa v. Maharishi Dayanand University (DB), ii) Apurav Chandel v. State of H.P (DB), iii) Rajendrakumar Chandrakant Nadkarni v. University of Bombay affirmed by the Division Bench of that Court in Yudhvir Singh v. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, iv) Ku. Sadhana v. Vikram University, Ujjain (DB), v) Anjay Bansal v. Bangalore University, vi) Fateh Kumari Sisodia v. State of Rajasthan and vii) Shatrudhan Upadhaya v. Union of India (DB). Reference in this regard can also be made to University of Kerala v. Sandhya P. Pai (DB) though not concerned with the issue as before us, but generally considering the effect of the delays in re-evaluation and containing a useful discussion on the relationship between the Universities and their students.

    10. As far as the argument of the counsel for the appellant College, of the direction of the learned Single Judge if allowed to stand making the admission process an endless exercise delaying the commencement of the academic session is concerned, we find the same to be misplaced. As far as the academic year 2014-15 is concerned, the last date for admission stipulated by the University i.e of 29 July, 2014 has elapsed. What the learned Single Judge has held is that till the said date, admission on the basis of re-evaluated marks cannot be denied. Thus, the possibility of others approaching for admission on the re-evaluated marks does not arise. As far as the future academic years are concerned, the learned Single Judge has already directed a mechanism to be devised therefor. We are confident that the Vice Chancellor of the respondent No. 2 University and the Chairman of the respondent no. 3 CBSE in their wisdom would be able to take care of the issue. The counsel for the appellant College has argued that the eligibility for admission in the appellant College is not only on the basis of examination conducted by the respondent no. 3 CBSE but also on the basis of the examination conducted by other Boards all over the country. He has thus suggested that a discussion between the Chairman of the respondent no. 3 CBSE and the Vice Chancellor of the respondent No. 2 University would not solve the problem. The said argument is again without any basis and unreasonably doubts the acumen of the highest decision making office in the respondent No. 2 University. We are sure that the Vice Chancellor of the respondent No. 2 University, while devising the solution for future would take care of the said aspect as well.

    11. The undertaking given by the respondent No. 2 University in Jainidh Kaur (supra) was to “admit all students even if they only produce their marks after re-evaluation till the last cut-off date irrespective of availability of seat”. The argument of the counsel for the appellant College that the cut-off date referred to in the said undertaking is the cut-off date of individual college affiliated to the respondent No. 2 University and not to the cut-off date fixed in the admission schedule announced by the respondent No. 2 University and which admittedly was 29 July, 2014, is fallacious. If the reference was to the cut-off date of individual Colleges, the question of the individual colleges admitting students more than their maximum intake capacity would not have arisen inasmuch as the student/candidate with higher marks on re-evaluation would be admitted and the need for the undertaking also stating “…. irrespective of availability of seat” would not have arisen. The need for undertaking stipulating that the students will be admitted irrespective of availability of seat arises only to take care of situation where the colleges had already closed their admissions and the student with re-evaluated marks approaching thereafter though within the cut-off date fixed by the respondent No. 2 University. We thus agree with the learned Single Judge that the cut-off date referred to was the date stipulated by the respondent No. 2 University. The respondent no. 1.writ petitioner had approached the appellant College and the respondent No. 2 University much prior to 29 July, 2014.

    12. The appellant College is the premium college of Commerce in the city and enjoys an enviable position. The same is obvious from the appellant College being the first choice of the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner also. Thus the argument of the counsel for the appellant College of the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner being not entitled to any relief on account of admission in another College is but to be rejected. The appellant College can always on the basis of this judgment approach the UGC for release of additional funds. We also agree with the counsel for the respondent no. 1.writ petitioner that the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Mandeep Kang (supra) cannot be said to be holding otherwise as the same itself carves out an exception for students with re-evaluated marks. Similarly, the judgment of the Supreme Court cited by the counsel for the appellant College is in the matter of recruitment, the principles wherein are entirely different. The petitioner in that case was found to be not even eligible to apply and that is not the position here.

    We therefore do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Shri Ram College Of Commerce v. Sunny Goel & Ors. S
    (Sep 9, 2014)