Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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