The petitioners at Delhi High Court.

The petitioners at Delhi High Court.
| Photo Credit: Special Arrangement.

The Delhi High Court on Friday ordered St. Stephen’s College to admit the seven students whose admissions it had put on hold.

The case stems from a policy dispute between Delhi University (DU) and the college. St. Stephen’s had put the admissions of 22 students on hold, terming them “extra allocations”. Twelve of the students were allotted seats by the university under the single girl child quota, which was introduced this year. The college had termed the quota “unconstitutional” in court.

While the university had claimed that the 22 admissions were part of the 5% additional seats in each programme allocated after discussing the issue with the colleges, St. Stephen’s said DU had made extra allocations that exceeded the college’s capacity. Seven of the affected students had approached the High Court — six together and one independently.

Highlighting the plight of the students, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma stated, “It is unfortunate that the candidates, who have just crossed the threshold of their school education, before stepping into their dream college, had to step into the court premises with a plea about their legitimate claim of admission to the college.”

“On the one hand, the petitioners faced the challenge of uncertainty over securing admission to their preferred college — St. Stephen’s. On the other hand, they were also deprived of the opportunity to select and opt for their second-choice college… causing them to miss out on other potential options for securing a seat.”

The case of one of the petitioners — Aleena Imran — was emblematic of the dispute. She had applied for the B.A. (Hons.) Economics course under the general category.

Of the 50 seats in the course, half are reserved for minority students and four for students from SC/ST communities, leaving 21 seats for general category students. The college argued that the 5% extra allocation takes the overall intake to 22.05, which is closer to 22 than 23. Therefore, DU should have allocated seats to 22 applicants, but it allocated one extra seat, exceeding the permitted intake.

To this, the court said, “When dealing with fractions like 1.2 or 1.3 or 1.4 in the context of seat allocations, the figure must be rounded up to 2, as humans cannot be divided into fractions, and rounding off to the lower numerical figure would undermine the spirit of the policy.”

Students relieved

Reacting to the judgment, Ms. Imran, one of the seven student petitioners, said, “Finally, we can look forward to going to the college. We are grateful that it all worked out. We haven’t received any information from the college yet, but we hope to join classes either on Saturday or on Monday.”

Another petitioner, Nishika Sahoo, said, “We met some of our teachers during the orientation session last week and have been in touch with some of our friends who are attending classes. We have missed some classes. We will have to catch up over the next few days.”

Some of the 15 students who had not challenged the college’s decision to put their admission on hold said they were hopeful that the relief granted to the seven students would also extend to them.

T. Sinha, the mother of one of the 15 applicants, said, “We are hoping that the admission portal will be opened for us too, allowing us to pay the fees and complete my daughter’s admission.”

She added, “We will decide in a day or two. If we are left with no other option, we will also consider approaching court. My daughter should not lose a year of education for no fault of hers.”

Some of the 15 students who had not challenged the college’s decision to put their admission on hold said they were hopeful that the relief granted to the seven students would also extend to them.

T. Sinha, the mother of one of the 15 applicants, said, “We are hoping that the admission portal will be opened for us too, allowing us to pay the fees and complete my daughter’s admission.” She added, “We will decide in a day or two. If we are left with no other option, we will also consider approaching court. My daughter should not lose a year of education for no fault of hers.”



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *