W.P (C) No.10853/2009 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Writ Petition (Civil) No.10853/2009 % Date of Decision: 18.08.2009 Sunil Jain …. Petitioner Through Mr.Pankaj Sinha, Advocate Versus University of Jamia Millia Islamia & Ors. …. Respondents Through Mr.M.Atyab Siddiqui, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr.Amitesh Kumar, Advocate for the respondent No.3. 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. * 1. The petitioner has been denied admission to B.Ed course of Jamia Millia Islamia University on the ground that the petitioner already has another professional degree, Master in Social work and, therefore, he cannot be admitted to B.Ed degree course which is another professional course, though he is eligible for admission to M.Ed course, which is challenged by the petitioner. W.P (C) No.10853/2009 Page 2 of 5 2. The respondents have framed a sub rule 14 under Para 5 in “Rules relating to admission” which is as under:- “14. It is clarified that the student on completing a professional course shall not be allowed to pursue another professional course. However, this shall not preclude a student from securing admission in a higher course from the same academic stream. The above exclusion subject to other conditions and requirements laid down by academic Council from time to time in various courses.” 3. The petitioner has contended that the rule in the prospectus is unconstitutional and there is no rational reason or basis for the respondents preventing admission to B.Ed course on this ground. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 who appears on advance notice has contended that the petitioner did not disclosed that he had obtained a professional degree, Master of Social Work in his application form which was filed by him with the respondent for admission to B.Ed course. A copy of the application form is also produced by the respondent which reveals that though the petitioner has disclosed that he had obtained graduate degree from Delhi University, however, the fact that he is pursuing a masters degree in social work from Delhi University and has obtained the masters degree had not been disclosed. W.P (C) No.10853/2009 Page 3 of 5 5. The learned counsel has contended that the sub Rule 14 under Para 5 of Rules relating to admission is intravirus and there is a rationale for not admitting the students who have already obtained a professional degree. It is contended that lot of students seek admissions to the professional courses and considering their numbers and other factors it was decided not to allow the students to do a professional course who already have another professional degree. 6. This cannot be disputed that to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely (i) that the classification must be found on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the rule in question. The classification may be founded on different bases, namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the rule under consideration. 7. In the present case the classification is between candidates already possessing a professional degree and those who are not having any professional degrees. It is contended that the number of seats are W.P (C) No.10853/2009 Page 4 of 5 less compared to the candidates who have applied for admission. This differentia is intelligible and grouping of those candidates who already have a professional degree and those who do not have any professional degree cannot be held to be without any rational. The object appears to be, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, to educate the maximum number of candidates with professional degrees. In the circumstances it cannot be inferred that there is no nexus between the object of classification and the object sought to be achieved by the respondent. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that B.Ed course is not a professional course as has been disclosed on the website of the Jamia Millia Islamia University. The extract of website of respondent has not been produced and filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 has, however, refuted it and has produced a photocopy of Ordinance I pertaining to Admission and Enrollment of Students. In Annexure 1-B of the Ordinance (I), List of Professional Courses (Graduation onwards) have been detailed which also shows B.Ed as a professional course. In the circumstances, the plea of the petitioner that B.Ed is not a professional course is not acceptable. W.P (C) No.10853/2009 Page 5 of 5 9. For the foregoing reasons the sub Rule 14 restricting the admission to the professional courses to those students who do not have any other professional degree cannot be faulted on the grounds as has been alleged by the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is without any merit and it is, therefore, dismissed. August 18, 2009 ANIL KUMAR, J. ‘k’