i.ri .:, ; " qt.). {. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: Decemb er7 , 2OOG [r.P.(Cl.No. 15383/2OO6 Ms.Noorpreet Kaur PETITIONER Through: Mr.K.K. Rai and Mr.Abhishek Singh, Advocates. Versus Institute' of Home Economics University of Delhi & Anr. RESPONDENTS :D Through: Mr.S.K. Luthra,Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AI\[E KUITIAR 1. Whether reporters of Incal papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AI\IIL KUIIIIAR, J. Rule. l. The learned Counsel for the parties stated that no other affidavits were to be filed in support of respective contentions of the 16 a wP(c) 1s383 of 2006 Page I of25 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signing Date:07.10.2023 10:49 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified ,r ,a parties. The writ petition has ttrerefore, been taken for final disposal with their consent. 2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the decision of respondent no. 2, Director, Institute of Home Economics, in allocating Apparel and Textile Design as the elective paper to the petitioner instead of "Developmental Journalism" as claimed by her and for issuance of direction to the respondents to assign her 'Developmental Journalism' as the elective paper. 3. Respondent no. I is a college affiliated to the University of Delhi and respondent No. 2 is the Director of the respondent no. l. 4. Brief facts to appreciate the disputes are that the petitioner took admission to the respondent no. l, Institute of Home Economics, in the year 2OO4 and is a third year student of B.Sc. Home Science (Pass) Course. According to the prospectus of said course, a student of third year can choose an elective paper of his choice. The petitioner asserted that an assurance was also given by the respondents that wP(C) 15i8i of 2006 Page 2 of25 t, .+ the petitioner would. be at liberty to choose the elective paper of her choice. In the second year of the course, the petitioner was given a form to mark her preference of the elective paper for the third year. The petitioner was asked to give her second, ttrird and fourth preferences also. It was represented to her that other preferences have been taken so that if a stud.ent does not like his/her preference, the subject of second, third or fourth preference may be allotted. The petitioner opted for 'Development Journalism' as her first preference and 'Apparel and Textile Design' as her fourth preference. 5. Petitioner contended that on L7.7.2006 new session of III year began and the petitioner got to know that contrary to the first preference given by her for 'Development Journalism' the petitioner was assigned 'Apparel and Textile Design' as an elective subject. The petitioner contended that, therefore, she did not attend the regular a'i classes of 'Apparel and Textile Design' as she had opted for Development Journalism' as the elective subject. wP(C) 1s383 of 2006 Page 3 of25 q 1 +- 6. The petitioner, therefore, made several requests to the respondent no. 2 to allot her the subject 'Development Journalism' which was not assigned to her despite that being her first preference. The petitioner along with her fattrer further discussed the matter with other members of the teaching faculty, but the desired subject was not assigned to the petitioner. The petitioner along with her father met the respondent no. 2 and requested him to change her elective paper from 'Apparel and Textile Design' to 'development journalism' however, the request has been turned down. The petitioner has also contended that other students namely, Ms Varnita Gill and Ms. Ritika, who had scored less mark than the petitioner, were given 'Development Journalism' as an optional subject in third year and it has been denied to the petitioner. 7. The petitioner has therefore impugned the action of respondent a no. I on the ground that the same is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article L4 and 2L of the Constitution of India as the respondent no. 2 has failed to appreciate that the prospectus specifically provided that a student can choose elective paper of his/her choice in tJle third year WP(C) 1s383 of 2006 Page 4 of25 'i. l0 +- of the course. She also emphasized that the prospectus neither mentions the preparation of merit list nor restricts number of seats available for the students in a particular subject. On respondents' failure to give her subject of her first preference ' Development Journalism', the petitioner has impugned their action and has filed the present petition. 8. The respondents have contested the petition and filed the counter affidavit of Dr. Kumud Khanna, Director, Institute of Home economics, University of Delhi, refuting the averments made by the petitioner. The respondents contended that the petitioner had no vested right to be allotted any elective subject and that the same are allotted to the students as per standard practice and procedure followed by the Institute from year to year and the same depends on the availability of seats and merit of the student . 9. The respondents further pointed out that petitioner did not clear "pass" in II year as she got ER (Essential to reappear) in Paper no.22 (Housing Interiors and space design). Further for the allotment a wP(C) 1s383 of 2006 Page 5 oJ25 \\ q .L of elective paper in III year, first a list of all students who are clear "pass" is made and electives are allotted to those students according to their preferences based on merits and then merit list of the ER students is made and elective papers are allotted to them on the basis of number of vacancies available in each subject and ttre preference of the students on the basis of merit. 10. The respondents further contended that the students were required to fill the "option form" for B.Sc. Home Science, II year and submit the same in the office before proceeding for their summer vacations in May 2OO5 and out of 134 students the petitioner was the only one who did not fill the "option form" giving her marks for first year and marks of half yearly exarnination of second year. According to the respond.ents she was even telephonically informed to come to office and fi.ll up the "Option Form". The respondents further asserted that the academic body met in July 2006 to allot the subjects according to the merit and since they were not aware of the marks obtained by the petitioner in first year examination and half yearly examination of second year, at the time of allocation of the elective -'t WP(C) 1s383 of 2006 Page 6 of25 I-t \v ,t subject, the marks of the petitioner were taken from the office record for allocation of the elective subject to the petitioner as the classes were to start from tJ'e 17ft July 2006. The advisory committee prepared and placed on the notice board the list of students and the elective subject allotted to them on 15ft July 2006 and the petitioner was given a subject which was available according to her merit. It was further submitted by the respondents that for allotment of elective subjects, a list was prepared by adding the aggregate marks of first year and half yearly examination of second year plus marks in that particular subject in first year plus half yearly marks in that particular subject in the second year. It was further asserted that in order to allot elective subject 'Developmental Journalism' the first and second year papers to be considered were paper number 15 which is "Fundamentals of Communication and Extension" (I year) and paper number 25 "Media Systems"(Il year). There were total of 121 clear (pass) +13 ER students who were finafly promoted to ttrird year and there were six sections from A to F and all the students were equally divided into 6 sections each having 22 students. In the third year for allotment of electives, first the students who were clear "pass" ! wP(c) 1s383 of 2006 Page 7 of25 t \> -+, were allotted electives according to their preference based on fnerit and then the ER students merit list was made as per the above procedure. Then on the basis of the vacancies available in each section ER students were allotted the electives according to their preference based on merit amongst them. 11. The respondents denied the contention of the petitioner that the students with lower marks were allotted the subject of 'Development Journalism'. They submitted that both Varnita Gill and Ritika though were ER students like the petitioner but both had higher marks than the petitioner. The respondents further submitted that options were taken with the view that in case the ftrst preference cannot be granted then depending upon availability of seats, on merit the students can be considered for the second and likewise the other lower options. Respondents have denied discrimination in any manner whatsoever being meted to the petitioner. 12. Respondents further contended that the attendance record of the petitioner is also very poor. She has attended only 47.29o/o classes ") WP(C) ls38i of 2006 Page 8 oJ25 \\ { in practical and main papers up to 30.9.2006 during session commencing from the L7.7.2OO6. Further petitioner's second-year attendance in all theory papers was also less than 660/o and that the petitioner received '0' marks towards attendance in the internal assessment in all the five subjects of second year. The allocation of internal assessment marks are made stricfly in accordance with the rules laid down by the Executive Council of ttre University of Delhi vide resolution number 05 dated 1.5.2003. The respondent's asserted that the petitioner was assigned the elective subject, in accordarlce with the policy based on practice and procedure. On the basis of policy for allotment of elective subjects, ttre claim of the petitioner is not tenable. 13. The petitioner filed the rejoinder affidavit reiterating the averments made in the petition and contended that in terms of the Handbook of Information/Prospectus a student who had obtained 45o/o of the aggregate marks but has failed in one subject can reappear in that subject of second year along with third year examination and asserted that the distinction made between the ._{. WP(C) 1s383 of 2006 Page 9 of25 IJ \5 + students who were clear pass and ttre students who had ER is wittrout any basis and that tJle Handbook of Information does not provide for a such distinction between ttre students who are clear pass and students who have ER. The petitioner asserted that she filled up the option form clearly indicating her preference and submitted the same after the second year annual examination, and that he had marked "Development Journalism" as first preference and 'Apparel and Textile Design" as 4ft preference. The petitioner further contended that the method of calculating the merit as mentioned by the respondent is eroneous and has no basis and that the same ought to be based on the marks of the relevant subject only. The petitioner had also filed an additional affidavit submitting that the name.of Ms. Ritika and any averment made in the petition regarding her be tgeated as deleted and,she has been discriminated with Ms. Varnita Gitl only. L4. The petitioner has placed. reliance on tZnOZlSSupreme Court Cases 586 K. Shekhar Versus V. Indramma and Others to contend that generally speaking the Courts have been reluctant to interfere wP(C) 1s38i of 2006 .A Page 10 of25 +- with the running of educational institutions however in order to avoid even the semblance of arbitrariness or extraneous considerations colouring the institution's action, tJle actions of educational institutions should not be immune to judicial scrutiny. Reliance was also placed on AIR 1995 Delhi 268, Dr.Sanjeev Dhadhwal versus All India Institute of Medical Sciences to contend that admissions should be made on the basis of the conditions laid down in the prospectus. 15. I have heard the Counsel for the parties and have perused the petition, counter affidavit and the rejoinder and the documents filed with them. The basic question which needs to be addressed is that whether the petitioner had the right to choose €ur elective subject of her choice as per the prospectus ir:respective of merit and have the respondents erred in deciding the comparative merit of the students. 16. In the Ledcon Webster Dictionary, the meaning to the term 'Prospectus'has been given as follows: 'A brief sketch describing the main features of some proposed enterprise, as the plan of a literary work, or the proposals of a new business; a descriptive outline of an established organisation, as a college." ,t wP(C) 1s383 of 2006 Page 1l of25 I 'a Y -+ L7. The prospectus provides that the students will have ttre freedom to choose the elective paper in the final year. The relevant extract of ttre Handbook of information , 2OO4-2O05 Institute of Home Economics, Universlty of Delhi is as under:- ' ". ..In the third y€ff, the student chooses one elective paper of her choice along with papers from all the areas of home science. This provides her with an opportunity to have one specialization in paper in the chosen field." 18. Though a candidate has a right to choose one elective paper, but.allotment of that elective subject will depend on some criteria, if number of students are more than the seats available for a parlicular subject. Reading the entire prospectus, it can not be inferred that a student is entitled to get the elective subject of his/her choice inespective of his/her merit and aptitude for a particular subject. If the number of students are more than the number of seats for a particular subject, the educational bodies are required to have some policy or criteria to allot the subject to the students. The prospectus of ,A'' wP(C) 1si83 of 2006 Page 12 of25 \K i --:1 f the respondents stipulates that besides the compulsory subjects, a student will be entitled for one elective subject which will provide him/her an opportunity to have specialization. The prospectus did not stipulate the criteria to be applied for allotment of elective subject in case the number of students is more than the number of seats available in elective subjects. This will not mean nor can be construed that the policy or criteria applied by the respond.ents is contrary to ttre stipulation made in the prospectus. Had the respondents disclosed the criteria or policy in the prospectus for allotment of elective subjects in that case they could not evolve a different criteria or policy for allotment of elective subjects nor could unilaterally change and apply rules not made known to candidates and would be bound and totally circumscribed by what was indicated in the prospectus. However, since no guidelines/rules had been provided by the respondents in the prospectus for allocation of the elective subject, the plea of the petitioner tJ:at criteria or policy applied by the respondents is contrary to stipulation made in the prospectus, is not tenable and can not be accepted in the present facts and circumstances of the case. The prospectus only specifies that the F wP(c) 1s383 of 2006 Page 13 of25 Y 17 -t- students can choose the elective paper in which they would like to specialize. It nowhere provides for the criteria for allocating the elective papers which is, therefore, essentially governed by the rules as framed by the academic body. There is no conflict between the rules as framed by the academic council and the. prospectus for determining which stud.ent should be allotted which paper taking into consideration ttre merit/performance of the students in the previous year exarnination. Had there been any conflict between the provision as laid down in the prospectus and the rules than the petitioners would have been justified in claiming allocation of elective paper as per the terms of ttre prospectus. But in the case in hand there is no such conflict. 19. Further if the criteria or policy for deciding the allotment of elective subject has been made reasonably and there is no arbitrariness and has been applied uniformally then the courts are not to interfere with the manner and method of making the policy or criteria. In a catena of cases the Supreme Court has held that Court cannot sit and adjudicate on the policies framed by the academic wP(C) 1s383 of 2006 Page 14 of25 N =+- I bodies for improving the Academic standards. It is the prerogatve of ttre Academic bodies who have the necessaqr expertise in the field. Since ttre academic bodies have framed and applied the rules in a bonafide manner to all the students equally and uniformly ttrere will be no justification to lay down a different policy or criteria. 20. In Maharastra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others MANU/SC/OO55/ 1984 the Supreme Court reiterated the'proposition ttrat ttre Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation making body. Paragraph 29 of this judgment is relevant and is reproduced as follows: j'Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defensive of the same. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute.its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day to day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It witl be wholly wrong A- WP(C) 1s383 of 2006 Page 15 of25 t\ 'f' for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye{aw which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. It is rrnfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case." 2L. The Apex Court also held that the Court should not sit over the wisdom of the policy and will not strike it down on the ground that it is not wise or prudent in the opinion of tJle Court. The Supreme Court held: "The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the Legislature and the sub- ordinate regulation making body. It may be a wise policy, which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulaton will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purpose of ttre Act. The legislature and its delegate are the sole repositories of the I wP(C) 1s38s of 2006 Page 16 of25 1./ i "4' power to decide what policy should be pr-rrsued in relation to matters covered by the Act and there is no scope for any interference by the Courts unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal infirmity in the sense of its being wholly beyond tJre scope of Page 2OI2 the regulation-making power or it being inconsistent with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the limitation imposed by the Constitution." 22. The respondents have allotted elective subjects on the basis of performance of ttre students in the first year annual examination and in half yearly second year examination. In ord.er to allot elective subject 'Developmental Joirrnalism' the performance in first and second year papers were also considered which were paper number 15 "Fundamentals of Communication and Extension" (I year) and paper ntrmber 25 "Media Systems". This criteria or policy can not be considered irrational or arbitrary which has been applied uniformally. It is well setfled that in policy matters this Court has a very limited scope of interference which has been held in Union of India v. International Trading Co,, MANU/SC/0392/2OO3, State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya, MANU/SC/O156/1998, Krishnan Kakkanth v. Government of Kerala MANU/SC/OO44/ L997, G.B. Mahajan v. (. ry wP(C) 1s383 of 2006 Page 17 of25 v> '4' Jatgaon Municipal Council MANU/SC/O284/ 1991 and Federation of Railway Officers Association v. Union of India, MANU/SC/O27L / 2003. In Union of India v. International Trading Co. (supra) ttre Supreme Court observed: "The Courts as observed in G.P. Mahajan v.Jalgaon Municipal Council, MANU/SC/O2L9/ 1994 are kept out of the lush field of administration policy except where the policy is inconsistent with the express or implied provision of a statute which creates the power to which the policy relates, or where a decision made in purported exercise of power is such that a repository of the power acting reasonably and in good faith could not have made it. But there has to be a word of caution. Something overwhelming must appear before tJ'e Court will intervene. That is and ought to be a difficult onus for an appiicant to discharge. The Courts are not very good at formulating or evaluating policy. Sometimes when the Courts have intervened on policy Page ?OLI grounds the Court's view of the range of policies open under the statute or of what is unreasonable policy has not got pubtic acceptance. On the contrarlr, curial views of policy have been subjected to stringent criticism. 23. In Tamil Nadu Education Dept., Ministerial and General Subordinate Services Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., MANU/S C / O48O / 1979 , the Supreme Court while examining the scope of interference by the Courts in public policy held that the Court wP(c) 1s383 of 2006 Page 18 of 25 \l '1 cannot strike down a circular/Government Order or a policy merely because there is a variation or contrad.iction. The Court observed: "Life is sometimes contradiction and even inconsistency is not always a virtue. What is important is to know whether mala fides vitiates or irrational and extraneous factors fouls". In that decision the Court had observed : "Once, the principle is found to be rational, the fact that a few freak instances of hardship may arise on either side cannot be a ground to invalidate the order or the policy. Every cause claims a martyr and however, unhappy we be to see the seniors of yesterdays becoming the juniors of today, this is an a-rea where, absent arbitrariness and irrationality, the Court has to adopt a hands-off policy." 24. In Netai Bag and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors., MANU/SC / 0604 /2000, the Supreme Court observed: "The Court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the government merely because it feels that Anr. decision would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical." wP(c) 1s383 of 2006 Page 19 of 25 i .1- i 25. In Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration and Ors. MANU/SC/OL89/2001, it has been held that in exercise of their powers of judicial review, the Courts do not ordinarily interfere with policy decisions of the executive unless the policy"can be faulted on the ground of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. If the policy cannot be touched on any of these grounds, the mere fact that