Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Delhi HC Dismisses Writ Petition Against Delhi University’s External Ward Quota Allocation, Upholds Stream-wise Admission Procedure

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court today dismissed a writ petition challenging the revised allocation under the External Ward Quota (EWQ) in Delhi University. The petition, filed by Sameer Singh, a minor, through his father, questioned the allocation process for admission to the B.A. (Hons.) History course in Hindu College. The case revolved around the interpretation of Delhi University’s ward quota admission policy and its adherence to procedural norms.

Justice C. Hari Shankar, presiding over the case, observed, “There was no inflexible rule that, before admitting a second student to any one course in a particular cluster, first admission to other course had to be exhausted.” This observation was pivotal in the court’s decision, which found the University’s allocation process to be in compliance with established policies.

The petitioner was initially allocated to the B.A. (Hons.) History course in Hindu College but later revised to SGTB Khalsa College. He contended that the allocation should be course-wise as per the Academic Council meeting minutes dated 27th November 2020. However, the University defended its position by arguing that the allocation followed a stream-wise basis, a procedure based on a file noting dated 4th November 2022 and approved by the Vice-Chancellor.

In his judgment, Justice Shankar noted, “The Admission Branch’s resolution dated 4 November 2022, which was approved up to the Vice-Chancellor, and which was also decided to be followed for 2023-24, merely worked out a manner in which the admission to the quota of 8 students... was to be made. In so doing, it did not infract any of the said decisions taken in the AC meeting dated 27 November 2020.”

Further clarifying the court’s stance, the judge added, “Failure to meet the minimum eligibility criteria as declared by the University is one of the grounds on which the admission can be cancelled. Even otherwise, an admission which is made contrary to the applicable instructions/decisions can always be rectified.”

The judgment is a reaffirmation of the University’s autonomy in determining its admission policies and procedures. The court’s decision to dismiss the petition highlights the importance of adhering to established academic norms and regulations.

Date of Decision: 30 January 2024

SAMEER SINGH MINOR THROUGH HIS FATHER VS UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR.

 

Latest Legal News