Excess allocation of seats in a college would not only create a burden on the limited available infrastructure but also impair the institute’s ability to impart quality education to its students, the Delhi High Court has said.
The court’s observation came while dealing with an argument of St. Stephen’s College that instead of allocating students against the sanctioned intake, excessive allocation of seats has been made by the Delhi University.
According to the university, it was for convenience as normally all the students do not take admission, resulting in some seats remaining vacant.
“This court is further of the view that the appellant’s (Stephen’s College) argument that excessive allocation has been made by the university has not been rebutted with specificity by the university.
“This court would like the university to appreciate that excess allocations of seats in a college would not only create a burden on the available limited infrastructure but would also impair the ability of the college to impart quality education to its students. Such action could also jeopardise the careers of young students,” a bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said.
While the order was passed Thursday, it was uploaded on the court’s website on Friday.
The division bench was hearing an appeal by the college challenging a single judge’s interim order directing that six students be granted provisional admission in accordance with the allocation by the varsity.
The bench said though the single judge’s August 23 order stated that provisional admission be granted to these students, it was of the opinion that the order virtually granted the relief sought by them in the main petition.
It, however, advanced the date of hearing from September 11 to September 5 in the petition pending before the single judge and said the six students must not attend their classes till the plea is decided.
“Since the final hearing before the single judge has been expedited and with a view to balance the equities, this court directs that till the disposal of the writ petition, the respondents no.1 to 6 (six students) shall not attend the classes at the appellant-college,” the bench said.
During the hearing, senior advocate Romy Chacko, representing the college, said the institution is much sought after and students allotted different programmes of study ordinarily accept whichever course is offered, and the number of vacancies after the initial allotment is minimal or not at all.
He said after protesting against such a policy, the university agreed that excess allotment to the college would be limited to 5 per cent in each programme.
The senior counsel submitted that contrary to the commitment, the varsity allotted more students.
Advocate Mohinder JS Rupal, appearing for the university, submitted that the varsity has allocated only 5 per cent extra seats in the unreserved category in the college.
The court also pulled up the varsity for allotting more students to the college than the sanctioned strength.
“The university must understand that they are playing with the students’ careers. You are not playing a game of chess that you are settling for. It is a very serious matter,” the division bench observed orally.
It added, “Don’t do this with students, this will affect their careers. Tell this to the university, this is not good. We hope that better sense will prevail.” The single judge had granted the relief to six undergraduate candidates while noting they had cleared the Common University Entrance Test (CUET) and completed other formalities.
Comments
0 comment