St. Stephen’s College has moved the division bench of the Delhi High Court against an order passed by the single judge directing the college to grant admission to seven students whose admissions were in limbo due to a dispute between the college and Delhi University (DU), claiming that the findings would create a severe burden on it.
On Monday, Stephen’s lawyer urged a bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela to urge the court to list the matter for tomorrow, to which the court agreed.
The university has appealed against an order passed by the bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on September 6, which, besides directing Stephen’s to admit the students, had upheld the university’s policy of allocating additional seats in the initial round, which was challenged by the university.
The Common Seat Allocation System (CSAS), which gives the university the power to allot seats to students in the initial rounds to commence the academic term on time, is binding on all the colleges affiliated to the university, Justice Sharma observed. Taking note of the college’s conduct of preparing a separate seat matrix and setting separate cut-off marks for each of the programmes, the court was of the view that the 13 bachelor’s programmes offered by Stephens should be considered separate and distinct for the purpose of seat allotment and admission. However, in its 54-page verdict, the court had refused to rule on the legality of the “single girl quota”.
The September 6 order was issued in response to a petition filed by seven students who claimed that the university had neither accepted nor rejected their application despite completing all formalities. The students, through their lawyers Ravinder Singh and Raveesha Gupta, had claimed that they were facing undue hardship through no fault of their own.
Stephen’s plea before the apex court presented a picture where the single judge failed to understand the intent and purpose of over-allocation of seats in the initial rounds and violated his fundamental right to manage the university by ordering admission to students.
The policy of allocating excess seats, according to the suit, was never intended to create additional seats and was just a shortcut to eventually reach the full number of seats. “This is merely an administrative convenience and cannot create any additional vested rights for students seeking admission,” the suit reads.
In the suit, the university alleged that contrary to its commitment regarding additional allocation and permitted admission, it allocated more seats, thus rendering the university unable to admit such candidates.
The petition also stated that the university, in accordance with the provisions of CSAS, could have allotted only one candidate in the Single Girl category in the BA Programme, and instead allotted 10 candidates, which is totally unacceptable and unsustainable.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this post is for general information purposes only. We make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the post for any purpose.
We respect the intellectual property rights of content creators. If you are the owner of any material featured on our website and have concerns about its use, please contact us. We are committed to addressing any copyright issues promptly and will remove any material within 2 days of receiving a request from the rightful owner.