W.P(C) No.10318/2009 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Writ Petition (Civil) No.10318/2009 % Date of Decision: 24.07.2009 Sushant Ray …. Petitioner Through Mr.B.K.Sinha, Advocate. Versus Dean and Head, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi …. Respondent Through Mr.Mohinder J.S.Rupal, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO ANIL KUMAR, J. * The petitioner seeks admission to LLB course at Law Centre-II, ARSD College, New Delhi. The petitioner contended that he secured 711 rank in the LLB entrance test, 2009 and he attended the counseling session on 10th June, 2009. It is contended that on the date of counseling he could not deposit the fees due to personal family problems and went out of town and the petitioner could not come back for quite sometime, however, he sent an email on 28th June, 2009 to the respondent. It is asserted that W.P(C) No.10318/2009 Page 2 of 4 on 10th July, 2009 the petitioner went to deposit the fees which was not accepted and he has been denied an opportunity for admission to the LLB course. The bulletin of information for admission to the courses of Faculty of Law, University of Delhi stipulates the dates for counseling and date for payment of fees. The candidates who appeared for counseling on 10th June, 2009 could pay the fees on 11th, 12th & 15th June, 2009. It is categorically stipulated in the bulletin of information that the vacant seats under any category shall be filled up at 10 AM on Monday 29th June, 2009 from amongst the candidates of the concerned category as per merit. Admittedly the fees was not paid by 15th June, 2009 and the seat for the petitioner could not be kept beyond that time. The learned counsel for the respondent who appears pursuant to an advance notice has produced a letter dated 23rd July, 2009 from the Dean, Faculty of Law, Delhi that the petitioner had come for counseling on 10th June, 2009 and he had filled up the option and admission form for admission to LLB course, 2009-2010 which was verified on 10th June, 2009 itself. He was offered admission on that day and had time to deposit the fee till 15th June, 2009. Since he did not do so his seat, in accordance with the bulletin of information, was offered to other candidates. It is further asserted that all seats which were available as on 29th June, 2009 have been filled up and no admission has been made after that date. It is also contended that there are number of other W.P(C) No.10318/2009 Page 3 of 4 candidates who are pestering now for admission but it has not been acceded to because the admission has been closed after filling up all the seats and no seat is available. It is also stated that the course of LLB has already started on 21st July, 2009 and admission cannot be reopened after all the seats have been filled. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any right of the petitioner entitling him to deposit the fees after 15th June, 2009 which was the last date for payment of fees. In any case the petitioner ought to have deposited the fees before 29th June, 2009, the next date for counseling. For the reasons stated by the petitioner, one seat could not be kept vacant for the petitioner, as had the petitioner not deposited the fees even after 29th June, 2009, the same would have gone waste. In any case the entire admission process cannot be modified and varied on account of such individual difficulties as has been raised by the petitioner as consideration of such pleas and keeping the seats open for such candidates may have a cascading effect on the entire process of admission which is not permissible and in any case the Courts do not have to interfere with such policy decisions unless the action and the acts of the respondents are ex facie arbitrary and illegal. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and he cannot be admitted to LLB course of the respondent. W.P(C) No.10318/2009 Page 4 of 4 The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, parties are left to bear their own cost. July 24, 2009 ANIL KUMAR, J. ‘k’