Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

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