Delhi High Court: The present writ petition was instituted by petitioner, St. Stephen’s College praying that this Court be pleased to issue appropriate orders directing Respondent 1, University of Delhi to allot proportionate number of PG seats to petitioner or in the alternative lay guidelines for allocation of seats to P.G. course. C. Hari Shankar, J.*, directed Respondent 1 to ensure that allocation/allotment of PG seats in petitioner was not disproportionate. Respondent 1 was further directed to consider framing of an appropriate policy or appropriate guidelines, to govern allocation/allotment of seats in PG courses amongst various colleges.
Background
Petitioner’s grievance was that, while allotting seats for admission to Postgraduate (PG) courses in colleges affiliated to it, Respondent 1 was allotting a disproportionately small number of seats to petitioner. Petitioner alleged that there were no objective guidelines, whatsoever, governing the allotment of PG seats amongst colleges. As a result, Respondent 1 enjoyed absolute and hegemonic control over the decision of the number of PG seats to be allocated to any particular college affiliated to it. In arbitrary exercise of this authority, it was alleged that Respondent 1 was allotting very few PG seats to petitioner with no due justification.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that petitioner’s counsel’s submission that right to administer under Article 30(1) of the Constitution could not be denied, was unexceptionable. The Court observed that petitioner’s right to modulate its admission process to ensure that students belonging to the Christian minority have a leg up in the matter of admission to its portals stands acknowledged by the Supreme Court and could not, therefore, be regarded as res integra. The Court opined that the right to administer its institution under Article 30(1) of the Constitution, also includes the right to decide on the members of its Governing Body. The right under Article 30(1) did not, however, extend to maladministration of the affairs of the minority institution, in which event the regulatory powers vested in the University would be invocable.
The Court noted that while all other colleges were honouring the selection process adopted by Respondent 1 before allocating the students to PG courses, it was petitioner alone which was adopting a different course and subjecting the selected students to an additional round of interview. The students, who could not clear the interview round, were, therefore, not granted admission by petitioner, and were, thereby, left in the lurch. Respondent 1 thus had to make special efforts to ensure that such students were admitted to other colleges. This creates disharmony among students and upsets the entire system of allocation of PG seats amongst colleges.
The Court opined that this “rebellious” attitude of petitioner, in subjecting the students shortlisted for admission to the PG courses, by Respondent 1, to a further round of interview, was the main factor which provoked Respondent 1 to reduce the number of seats allocated to petitioner.
The Court relied on St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2893 (‘2022 St. Stephen’s College Case’), wherein the Division Bench of this Court held, following the Supreme Court’s decision in St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi, (1992) 1 SCC 558, that petitioner was entitled to continue to hold an interview, and allocate 15% marks to the interview with 85% marks for CUET score, in the case of minority students to be admitted by it, however, it was held that non-minority students admitted by petitioner could not be made to subject themselves to an interview.
The Court noted that to the extent the above judgment of the Division Bench in 2022 St. Stephen’s College Case (supra) did not allow an interview to be conducted for admission of non-minority students, petitioner filed appeals before the Supreme Court, which were presently pending.
The Court also noted that petitioner’s counsel’s submission that petitioner would not adopt the interview process for non-minority students and would follow the same procedure as was approved by the Division Bench in 2022 St. Stephen’s College Case (supra) insofar as minority students were concerned. Further. Counsel for Respondent 1 submitted that so long as petitioner restricted holding of interview for admission of PG students only to students belonging to the Christian minority community, Respondent 1 would not have any objection and would hereafter ensure that there was proportionate allocation of PG seats to petitioner, without the number of seats allocated being disproportionately less as compared to the seats allotted to other colleges.
The Court noted that there was no guideline governing such allocation and thus opined that “while the Court cannot, in exercise of the jurisdiction vest in it by Article 226 of the Constitution, direct framing of guidelines, or creation of a policy, it is deemed appropriate that Respondent 1 be directed to consider doing so, in order to avoid any scope for arbitrariness”.
The Court disposed of the present writ petition in the following terms:
-
Petitioner was permitted to subject minority students, seeking admission to PG courses to interview and to allocate 15% marks to interview with 85% being allocated for the students’ CUET score. Non-minority students would, however, not be subjected to any interview for admission to PG courses. Their admission would solely be based on their CUET score;
-
Respondent 1 would ensure, henceforth, that allocation/allotment of PG seats in petitioner was not disproportionate. Among other considerations, Respondent 1 might consider, in deciding on the number of PG seats to be allotted, the infrastructure available with the College concerned, and the number of UG students in that course of study admitted in the College. These, however, were merely suggestions, and Respondent 1 was at liberty to adopt any objective criterion as it deemed fit in that regard;
-
Respondent 1 was directed to consider framing of an appropriate policy or appropriate guidelines, to govern allocation/allotment of seats in PG courses amongst various colleges.
[St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi, W.P.(C) 803 of 2022, decided on 22-4-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice C. Hari Shankar
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Romy Chacko, Shakti Chand Jaidwal, Prashant Kumar, Sachin Singh Dalal, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Hardik Rupal, Advocates
Buy Constitution of India HERE
