Universities cannot deny admission unless the information bulletin makes it crystal clear that the result of the supplementary exam would not relate to the main exam

Lahari Gurrala | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad | 28th January 2020

MR. ABHISHEK MOURYA Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 9817/2019

Facts of the Case:

• The petitioner has obtained admission in the 3-year LL.B course with respondent university i.e. the University of Delhi.
• Each academic year comprised two semesters and the petitioner sailed through 5 semesters without a hitch. However, in the 6^thsemester, the petitioner had trouble knowing from the University as to whether or not he had cleared one of the five papers i.e. paper concerning Interpretation of Statutes. This situation obtained on 31.07.2019 when the University uploaded online the 6^th semester result. 
• In the interregnum, the petitioner sat for the All India Law Entrance Test 2019 (in short ‘AILET 2019’) conducted by the NLUD for academic session 2019-2020, which, inter alia, formed the basis of seeking granting admission to the 2019 LL.M. course 
• Although the petitioner, at that point in time did not meet the eligibility criteria for grant of admission to the 2019 LL.M. course, he along with other candidates was allowed to take the AILET 2019 in view of the provisions contained in regulation 3(b) of the LL.M. programme regulations framed by the NLUD. 

“3. ADMISSION PROCEDURE:
 b. Candidates awaiting results of the qualifying examination can appear for the Entrance Test subject to a condition that they produce proof of having passed the qualifying examination at the time of admission.” 

• The petitioner, who had applied under the SC category, was shortlisted for spot- counselling on 08.06.2019 for grant of provisional admission to the 2019 LL.M. course by the NLUD.
• Pursuant to the counselling, on 24.06.2019, the petitioner obtained a provisional admission letter (PAL) qua the 2019 LL.M. course offered by the NLUD. As per the terms of the PAL, the petitioner deposited the requisite course fee. 
•  On 01.08.2019, the NLUD via the concerned department sent a common email to all those candidates who had been given provisional admission to attend the orientation programme on 13.08.2019.
• On receipt of this mail, the petitioner wrote to the NLUD, albeit, via email that he is given further time to submit the result of his LL.B. course as his result had been delayed by the University due to technical glitches. 
• It is also clear that NLUD has referred to an email dated 10.08.2019 which had been sent to all candidates who had been granted provisional admission including the petitioner whereby not only were they informed that the orientation programme would be held on 13.08.2019 but also that verification of original documents would be carried out before commencement of the orientation programme. 
• Since the petitioner had not been able to secure the LL.B result, he once again wrote to the NLUD (this time via the Vice-Chancellor) for being given an extension for submitting the LL.B. result. In this communication, the petitioner requested the Dean (Examination) that the date scheduled for the supplementary examination qua Interpretation of Statutes should not be postponed as his admission to the 2019 LL.M. course offered by the NLUD was dependent on him qualifying the LL.B. course.
• Later the petitioner has received a group mail dated 20.08.2019 from the NLUD informing him about the roll number that he had been allotted via this mail, the petitioner was informed that he had been allotted the roll number “1LL.M.19”. 
•  After receiving the mail the petitioner on 21.08.2019 has only applied for rechecking qua the concerned paper i.e. Interpretation of Statues but also took the decision to sit for the supplementary exam scheduled qua the said paper.
• On 26.08.2019, the petitioner has received communication that his provisional admission to the 2019 LL.M. course had been cancelled as he had not passed the qualifying exam on the date when orientation qua the 2019 LL.M. course was held. 
• After receiving the mail the petitioner has filed an instant petition in the High Court of Delhi and the court has issued an interim order that one seat will be kept reserved for the petitioner.

Issue :

• Whether the National Law University, New Delhi (NLUD) is right in rejecting the petitioners claim to the 2019 LL.M. course on the ground that on the date when orientation was held, he had not qualified the LL.B. course?

Held:

• It was held that a perusal of the Division Bench judgement in University of Delhi vs. Varun Kapur, case would show that unless the information bulletin/prospectus makes it crystal clear that the result of the supplementary exam would not relate to the main exam, the benefit has to be given to the candidate. It was stated that the result of the supplementary exam would relate to the main exam, the petitioner would necessarily succeed in view of the judgement of the Division Bench in Varun Kapur’s case.
• It was held that the dicta of the Division Bench judgement will apply and therefore, relief as prayed for, would have to be granted in this case. Accordingly, the NLUD will grant admission to the petitioner against one seat reserved for him and will make suitable adjustments with regard to the classes the petitioner has missed in the meanwhile. 
• In this behalf, if found necessary, the NLUD will arrange for extra classes for the petitioner. The petitioner will attend those classes without fail. 
• Furthermore, the petitioner will also comply with the requisite formalities stipulated by the NLUD for admittance to the 2019 LL.M. course.
• The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms