Trial Courts Must Award Just Compensation In POCSO Cases Beyond Fine Amounts; Interim Payment No Reason To Deny Final Relief: Madras High Court Section 482 CrPC Power Not For Conducting 'Mini-Trial'; Disputed Facts Must Be Adjudicated At Trial: Allahabad High Court Right To Walk On Demarcated Footpaths Is A Fundamental Right; Municipal Authorities Under Enforceable Duty To Provide Pedestrian Infrastructure: Supreme Court Right To Walk Is A Fundamental Right Under Articles 19(1)(d) & 21; Priority Over Motorised Vehicles: Supreme Court Municipal Commissioner Is Disciplinary Authority For All Employees Post-1993 Amendment; Existing Regulations Can't Fetter Statutory Power: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Force Plaintiff To Accept Monetary Compensation Instead Of Removal Of Encroachment Without Prayer: Supreme Court Recruitment Merit Is Not A Vested Right; Public Interest Justifies Disclosing Marks Of Candidates Outside Selection Zone: Supreme Court Special Police Establishment Not An 'Intelligence & Security Organisation', State Cannot Exempt It From RTI Act: Supreme Court Medical Practitioner Not Negligent Merely Because Result Was A Failure If Procedure Adopted Was Acceptable To Medical Science: Calcutta High Court Long Service Cannot Be Denied Regularization On Mere Technicalities If Appointment Wasn't Illegal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejection Of Nomination Paper Can Only Be Challenged Through Election Petition; Article 329(b) Bars Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court NI Act | Benefit Of Presumptions Under Sections 118 & 139 Not Available If Complainant Lacks Direct Knowledge Of Transaction: Kerala High Court Landowners Entitled To Solatium Under National Highways Act; Failure To Grant Is Ground To Challenge Award Under Section 34: MP High Court Transfer Policy Only Broad Guideline, Not Enforceable Under Article 226/227 In Absence Of Mala Fides: Rajasthan High Court

Grant of Uncanalized and Absolute Discretion is an Invitation to Arbitrariness: Delhi High Court Directs DU to Ensure Proportionate PG Seat Allocation to St. Stephen’s College

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has directed the University of Delhi (DU) to ensure proportionate allocation of postgraduate (PG) seats to St. Stephen’s College, highlighting the need for objective guidelines to govern seat allocation among affiliated colleges to prevent arbitrariness. The judgment, delivered by Justice C. Hari Shankar, underscores the balance between the rights of minority educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution and the need for fair administrative practices in seat allocation.

The litigation stemmed from St. Stephen’s College’s contention that DU had been allocating a disproportionately low number of PG seats to the college compared to other affiliated colleges, which it claimed was arbitrary and lacked any objective guidelines. The college argued that such allocation infringed upon its rights as a minority institution to establish and administer educational facilities under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.

The petitioner college pointed out significant disparities in seat allocations between St. Stephen’s and other colleges, arguing that neither the number of undergraduate seats in the college nor its infrastructural capacity justified the reduced PG seat allocation. The college further attributed the reduced allocation to its refusal to co-opt DU representatives on its selection panel and its practice of interviewing PG candidates — a method DU objected to, claiming it created disharmony and logistical challenges.

The court affirmed the rights of minority institutions to have autonomy in their admission processes, referencing Supreme Court precedents which allow such institutions to devise their admission criteria. However, it also emphasized the need for regulations ensuring educational standards are not compromised.

Minority Rights: St. Stephen’s College can continue its practice of interviewing minority students for PG admissions, assigning 15% weightage to interviews alongside 85% to CUET scores.

Non-Minority Students: The college must admit non-minority students based solely on their CUET scores, adhering to a recent interim order until a pending Supreme Court decision.

Seat Allocation Norms: DU must ensure equitable PG seat distribution, taking into account factors such as available infrastructure and undergraduate intake in corresponding disciplines.

The court directed DU to consider establishing clear, objective guidelines for PG seat allocation across affiliated colleges to prevent any future allegations of arbitrariness. This measure aims to foster transparency and fairness in the admission processes across the University.

Decision The judgment resolved the writ petition by setting terms for interview processes and seat allocation practices, thus balancing the rights of the minority institution with the need to maintain academic and administrative fairness.

Date of Decision: April 22, 2024

St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi and Ors,

 

Latest Legal News