MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Justice Should Be Seen to Be Done: Delhi High Court Directs Admission Under CW Quota Due to University’s Mistake

17 September 2024 8:17 PM

By: sayum


Delhi High Court in the case of Yashika Malik vs. University of Delhi Faculty of Medical Sciences & Ors., addressed the issue of denial of admission to a meritorious candidate under the Children/Widows of Armed Forces Personnel (CW) reservation. The Court ruled that the appellant, Yashika Malik, was wrongly excluded due to errors by the university and directed the creation of a supernumerary seat in her favor to rectify the injustice.

Yashika Malik, the appellant, applied for admission under the CW category in the University of Delhi's Faculty of Medical Sciences for the academic year 2024-25. Her father, a Sena Medal recipient, made her eligible for reservation under Clause E Priority V(VIII) of the CW category. Despite submitting the required Education Concession Certificate (ECC) and securing a high rank in the NEET examination, Malik’s name was removed from the provisional list of eligible candidates due to an erroneous cancellation of her ECC by the Kendriya Sainik Board (KSB).

Initially, Malik's name appeared in the tentative list of candidates eligible for the CW category but was later marked as "Not Eligible." Despite subsequent verification and re-issuance of the ECC by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and KSB, the university did not rectify its list to include her, leading to her exclusion from the seat allotment.

The main legal issue was whether the university was justified in excluding Yashika Malik from the CW category despite possessing a valid ECC. The High Court observed that the university acted arbitrarily by removing Malik's name based on the erroneous cancellation of the ECC by KSB. The Court noted that the ECC issued by the Officer-in-Charge (OIC), a competent authority under Clause E of the Information Bulletin, had been verified by the MHA, making her exclusion legally unsustainable.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, delivering the judgment, highlighted the university's failure to uphold the principles of fairness and merit. The Court found that Malik had been wrongly deprived of her rightful reservation due to an error on the part of the university and other authorities. It held that "Justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done," quoting the landmark decision in Rex vs. Sussex Justices.

In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in S. Krishna Sradha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., which allows for the creation of supernumerary seats in exceptional circumstances to ensure justice, the High Court directed the University of Delhi and the Medical Counseling Committee (MCC) to either increase the number of seats by one in the CW category or create a supernumerary seat for Malik. This direction was to be carried out within ten days from the date of the order.

The Delhi High Court's judgment in Yashika Malik vs. University of Delhi Faculty of Medical Sciences & Ors. underscores the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to merit in university admissions. By directing the creation of a supernumerary seat, the Court ensured that Malik, a deserving candidate, received the reservation she was entitled to, thereby upholding the principles of justice and equality.

Date of Decision: September 13, 2024

Yashika Malik vs. University of Delhi Faculty of Medical Sciences & Ors.

Latest Legal News