Charu Sharma vs Motilal Nehru College and Others

Vikramajit Sen, J.—A piquant situation has arisen in this case. The Petitioner had gained admittance to the MotiLal Nehru College

(hereinafter referred to as College) which is affiliated to the Delhi University in the B.A.(Hons.) English Degree Course. She is presently in the 2nd

year B.A. (Hons.) English. She had applied and gained admission to the College and the said Course as a Ward of an Employee, namely Shri

Sanjay Sharma, of the College. Numerous irregularities in Admissions to the College had been detected towards the end of the previous Academic

Year 2004-2005 in which Mr. Sanjay Sharma allegedly played a central and pivotal role. In the course of investigation it was discovered that the

Petitioner was not the daughter of Mr. Sanjay Sharma and Therefore, did not fall within the definition of ''Wards'' of employees which entitled the

Petitioner to preferential treatment so far as Admission to the College is concerned.

This Court would be loathe to come to the aid of any person who has knowingly committed an illegality or an irregularity. One of the features of

this case, which cannot be ignored, is that in the application for admission no mis-representation had been made in that the Petitioner had stated

that she is the niece of Mr. Sanjay Sharma. It has not been controverter that there is another case of a student who has been granted preferential

admission on the strength of her being a ''cousin sister'' of an employee. No action similar to that visited upon the Petitioner has been taken in

respect of the other student.

It would thus be fair to infer and deduce that the College understood cousins/nieces to fall within the purview of the word ''Ward''. The fact

remains that the citizens of Delhi cannot be expected to be aware of the restricted definition of `Wards'' contained in the University Regulations,

which precisely defines it to include only sons and daughters. The Concise Oxford Dictionary ascribes a much wider meaning to the word ward as

''a child or young person under the care and control of a guardian appointed by their parents or a Court.'' The Cobuild English Dictionary for

Advanced Learners defines ward to be ''a child who is the responsibility of a person called a guardian because their parents are dead or because

they are believed to be in need of protection''.

The College has instituted an Enquiry against the role of Mr. Sanjay Sharma in carrying out irregular admission in the College. Prima facie there

must be other persons in this Institution including Lecturers who had turned a blind eye to applications such as the present one and who, unlike the

Petitioner, must be deemed to have been aware of the definition of wards as encompassing only sons and daughters. In other words, so far as her

admission is concerned, officials of the college were negligent if not privy to the act itself.

The Petitioner has completed the 1st year of B.A. (Hons.) English and has passed the examination. When she applied for admission in the 2nd

year, since the College was by then aware of the so-called/perceived irregularity in her initial admission, she was not permitted to pay her college

tuition fees and other charges. So far as 2nd year is concerned the startling event is that the teachers in the College have duly marked the

attendance of the Petitioner for the entire year. It is difficult to comprehend how this event had transpired, not just in the case of one

teacher/lecturer but a minimum of four teachers.

Had the Petitioner not fulfilled the attendance criteria there would not have been any scope for this Court to give her any succor or relief. The

only impediment in her path in appearing in the 2nd year examination other than her irregular admission is that she has not paid the College tuition

fees and other charges. So far as this is concerned it can always be made up by a direction to pay these fees and charges.

Mr. Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the Delhi University, has rightly stated that the University has taken a serious note of the entire

matter. Proceedings shall be conducted with a view to placing fault where it should rest. Keeping in mind the meaning of ward in common

parlance, the Petitioner/Student cannot be penalised with such severity as to waste two precious years of her life. The pithy observations of the Full

Bench in Bal Krishna Tiwari Vs. Registrar of Awadhesh Pratap Singh, University, Rewa and Others, , immediately come to mind.

The watershed of this Petition, in my opinion, lies on the fact that the Petitioner has not made any incorrect statement while applying for

admission. Had she stated that she is the daughter of Shri Sanjay Sharma my approach, which should also be that of the Delhi University, would

have been drastically different. In the ordinary course it would have been expected of the Admission Committee to have looked into the

Application itself, and thereupon arrived at the conclusion that the Petitioner is not entitled to admission as she is not a daughter of an employee of

the college. The appropriateness of extending relief to a person who has violated Regulations, Therefore, does not arise in this case. On the

contrary, I am concerned with a student who faces the prospects of not being able to complete her undergraduate studies only for the possible

reason that the Respondent College had failed to properly peruse her application form. Prima facie, dereliction of duty is to be found in the camp

of the College Faculty and Office.

Keeping in balance all the interests that need to be considered, I am of the opinion that a direction should issue to the Respondent College to

accept the fees and other charges that are due from the Petitioner till the conclusion of the 2nd year. In other words, so far as the present

Academic Year is concerned, the College shall treat the Petitioner as one of its bona fide and regular students.

Strictly speaking, however, the Petitioner was not entitled to admission as per the Regulations of the Delhi University. Had she not been given

admission, another deserving student would have had the benefit of attending the Respondent College. Learned counsel for the Petitioner had, on

instructions from the father of the Petitioner, stated that the Petitioner will be willing to pursue her 3rd year studies as an external student. Mr.

Mathur states that if necessary and requisite applications are made to the School of Open Learning it shall grant admission to the Petitioner for the

3rd year thus enabling her to appear in the Final/3rd year examinations for B.A. (Hons.) English. By doing so, I have, on the persuasion of learned

counsel for the parties, endeavored to effect justice between them and possibly deter a repetition of the case.

The Petitioner shall be entitled to appear in the 2nd year examination as a regular student of Respondent No. 1 provided she has fulfilled the

attendance criteria. Tuition fees shall be paid/accepted within ten days from today. The Petitioner shall also be admitted as a student for the Final

Year, on her applying to the School of Open Learning, Delhi University. These Orders are without prejudice to any Enquiry which the

Respondents have commenced or may consider necessary to commence in the future, so as to bring all guilty persons to book. The Order shall not

constitute a precedent since it is restricted to its own particular and peculiar facts.

The Writ Petition stands disposed of in these terms. Parties to bear their respective costs.

dusty.