29 August 2024 Education >> Miscellaneous  

An appeal has been filed in the matter of ST. Stephen College v/s Hargun Singh Ahluwalia & Others challenging an interim order issued by a learned Single Judge on August 23, 2024, concerning provisional admissions at a prominent college allocated by Delhi University. The order granted provisional admissions to six respondents, which has led to significant contention regarding the allocation process and the rights of the appellant college.

Excessive Admissions Allegations:

The appellant's senior counsel argues that Delhi University has allocated more students than the college's sanctioned intake, a decision purportedly made for convenience since not all students accept their admissions. This practice has led to an allocation exceeding the agreed-upon 5% excess limit. For instance, in the B.A. Programme, the university allotted 36 students against a sanctioned strength of 24, resulting in over a 50% increase. The counsel contends that such increases not only affect the general category but also necessitate a proportional rise in minority admissions, risking overcrowding beyond the sanctioned limits.

Rights of Minority Institutions:

The appellant claims that the interim order infringes on its rights under Article 30 of the Constitution, which guarantees minority educational institutions the right to establish and administer their institutions. The counsel cites the Supreme Court's judgment in St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi (1992), emphasizing that these rights should not be undermined by unilateral decisions from the university.

Procedural Concerns:

Additionally, the appellant asserts that the order was passed in haste, lacking proper notice and opportunity for the college to respond. The absence of a timely copy of the writ petition hindered the appellant's ability to prepare adequately for the proceedings.

University’s Response:

In contrast, counsel for Delhi University contends that they allocated only the agreed 5% extra seats in the unreserved category. However, the university’s failure to address the appellant's claims regarding excessive allocations in detail raises further questions.

Maintainability of the Appeal:

The counsel for the respondents argues that the appeal is not maintainable, referencing the Midnapore Peoples’ Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda (2006) ruling, which categorizes interim orders based on their impact on the case at hand. The court noted that while the order in question is labeled as provisional, it has significant finality as it affects the rights and obligations of all parties involved.

Court’s Observations:

The court recognizes the need for caution in granting admissions through interim orders, particularly when the legality of such admissions is in question. Citing previous judgments, the court stressed that uncertainties surrounding admissions can lead to significant repercussions for students.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the university’s justification for excessive allocations has not been adequately rebutted and that such practices could strain college resources and impact educational quality. In light of this, the court directed the respondents to submit their counter affidavits and preponed the hearing date to September 4, 2024. Meanwhile, it ordered that the respondents be allowed to consider admission in their second-preference colleges if they wish. Importantly, until the matter is resolved, the respondents are barred from attending classes at the appellant college, preserving the legal and administrative rights of all parties involved. This ongoing case highlights the complexities and implications of admission policies in higher education institutions, particularly concerning minority rights and the regulatory roles of universities.