No Work No Pay: Delhi High Court Denies Back Wages To Reinstated Army Officer State Cannot Use 'Delay & Laches' To Evade Compensation For Land Taken Without Authority Of Law: Calcutta High Court Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Jail Appeal Solely On 3157-Day Delay; Orders Release Of Life Convict After 22 Years In Jail 138 NI Act | Failure To Produce Income Tax Returns Not Fatal To Cheque Bounce Case If Debt Is Established: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Public Records Not In Party's 'Power Or Possession' Until Actually Obtained; Leave Not Required For Rebuttal Documents: AP High Court For Conviction Under Section 34 IPC, Prosecution Must Establish Prior Meeting Of Minds & Pre-Arranged Plan: Allahabad High Court Merciless Beating With Blunt Side Of Deadly Weapons To Spread Terror Constitutes Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court CIT Can’t Invoke Revisionary Jurisdiction Merely Because AO’s Enquiry Was ‘Inadequate’ If View Is Plausible: Bombay High Court Mere Presence At Crime Scene Without Proof Of Prior Concert Insufficient To Invoke Section 34 IPC For Murder: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Be Used As Tools For Coercion: Bombay HC Dismisses Application To Implead Developer Without Contractual Nexus, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost Specific Performance Cannot Be Granted For Contingent Contracts Dependent On Third-Party Conveyance: Madras High Court Unlawful Subletting Is A ‘Continuing Wrong’, Fresh Limitation Period Runs As Long As Breach Continues: Bombay High Court Courts Must Specify Payment Timeline In Specific Performance Decrees; Order XX Rule 12A CPC Is Mandatory: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Does Not Automatically Rescind Due To Delay; Courts Can Extend Time For Deposit: Supreme Court Madras High Court Quashes Forgery Case Against Mahindra World City After Victims Accept Alternate Land In Settlement Motor Accident Claims: 13-Day FIR Delay Not Fatal; 80% Physical Disability Can Be Treated As 100% Functional Disability: Punjab & Haryana HC Murderer Cannot Inherit Property From Victim Through Wills; Section 25 Hindu Succession Act Bar Applies To Testamentary Succession: Supreme Court Courts Must Pierce Veil Of Clever Drafting To Reject Suits Barred By Benami Law; 2016 Amendments Are Retrospective: Supreme Court Indian Railways Is A Consumer, Not A Deemed Distribution Licensee; Must Pay Cross-Subsidy Surcharge For Open Access: Supreme Court Technical Rules Of Evidence Act Do Not Apply To Departmental Enquiries: Supreme Court Public Employment Cannot Be Converted Into An Instrument Of Fraud; Police Personnel Using Dual Identity Strikes At Root Of Service: Supreme Court

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