W.P.(C) 5519/2010 Page 1 of 3 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 10th September, 2010. + W.P.(C) 5519/2010 PRIYANKA SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rahul Shukla & Mr. Bachita Baruah, Advocates. Versus UOI & ORS .... Respondents Through: Ms . Sapna Chauhan & Ms. Kimmi, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate for R-2. Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal & Ms. Sonam Gupta, Advocates for R-3. Mr. Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Advocate for R-4. CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO in the Digest? RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is twofold. Firstly, it is contended that some of the subjects offered by the respondent no.2 CBSE at the stage of XIth-XIIth class in the vocational stream, though having the same contents as subjects listed by the Delhi University in its Bulletin of Information-2010 in the “List of subjects taught at Senior Secondary level and accepted for admission to Delhi University colleges” but are named differently, resulting in making the vocational stream W.P.(C) 5519/2010 Page 2 of 3 passouts of CBSE being ineligible for admission to Delhi University colleges. Secondly, it is contended that the Delhi University is recognizing only some of the vocational subjects offered by the respondent no.2 CBSE. The petitioner contends that owing thereto, the options of the petitioner for admission to Delhi University become restricted. 2. The counsel for the respondent no.3 Delhi University states that the question whether the course contents are same or not is to be decided by the Equivalence Committee of the respondent no.3 Delhi University and the question whether a particular vocational course is to be recognized by the respondent no.3 Delhi University or not for purposes of admission is in the domain of the Academic Council of the Delhi University. 3. The counsel for the respondent no.3 Delhi University and the respondent no.4 College have further contended that the respondent no.3 Delhi University and the colleges affiliated thereto admit students from all over the country and the students from the respondent no.2 CBSE form a small percentage thereof and if the respondent no.3 Delhi University were to integrate itself with the respondent no.2 CBSE courses, it would be required to so integrate itself with all the other Boards as well including the State Boards and which would be a herculean task. 4. However, since so far as the city of Delhi is concerned, the respondent no.2 CBSE is the only Board with the exception of one school, it is felt that the Equivalence Committee and the Academic Council of the Delhi University, situated in Delhi should at least consider integration with the courses being offered by the respondent no.2 CBSE. However, the said exercise cannot be done in a hurry and the petitioner cannot be granted any relief of admission in the current academic year. The counsel for the petitioner however states that the petitioner is willing to take her chance next W.P.(C) 5519/2010 Page 3 of 3 year and would desire a decision to be taken on the pleas raised by her in this petition. 5. The specific contention of the petitioner is that the vocational course titled DTP CAD & Multimedia offered by the respondent no.2 CBSE and studied by the petitioner has the same course content as Web & Multimedia Technology course identified by the respondent no.3 Delhi University as an academic subject and the vocational courses of IT Systems and Business Data Processing are not identified as job oriented vocational courses by the respondent no.3 Delhi University. 6. The respondent no.3 Delhi University is directed to consider the aforesaid representation of the petitioner and to pass a speaking order thereon. The Delhi University to also consider whether representations from any other concerned authorities are required to be invited for the said purpose and if it is so deemed expedient, the representations may be invited by issuing public notices or by seeking comments from the respondent no.2 CBSE and/or from other experts in the field. The counsel for the respondent no.3 Delhi University states that the respondent no.3 Delhi University would require the syllabus and course contents from the respondent no.2 CBSE. The respondent no.2 CBSE is directed to make the same available to the respondent no.3 Delhi University as and when sought. Decision on the said aspect be taken well before the beginning of the next academic session. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be given dasti. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 10th September, 2010 pp..