Equality may be a fiction but nonetheless one must accept it as a

governing principle of the state.

[Case Brief] MO Kareem V/s Guru

Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
and Anr.

Case name: MO Kareem V/s Guru Gobind Singh

Indraprastha University and Anr.

Case number: WP (C) No. 10522/2019, CM No.

43560/2019 and W.P. (C) No. 11628/2019

Court: High Court of Delhi.

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shaker.

Decided on: January 01, 2020.

Relevant Constitution of India (Article – 14),

Act/Sections: University Grants Commission Act 1956
(Section - 12(j)), (Section 12-A), (Section -
22), (Section - 26), (Section - 26(1)),
(Section – 3).

Author of the Paranjay Sharma.

case summary:
 BRIEF FACTSAND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
1)The petitions raised a similar issue and hence were disposed of via a common
judgment. The petitioners were referred by their names. The petitioner in W.P. (C)
10522/2019 was Mr. Mo Kareem while the petitioner in W.P. (C) 11628/2019 was Ms.
Jasleen Kaur. Similarly, the Respondent No.1 was Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha
University, referred as “University”.

2)The grievance was that Mr. Kareem and Ms. Kaur sought admissions in Master of
Computer Applications program after they had gained admission in respective
institutions, that is, Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC) and
Institute of Information Technology & Management (IITM).

3) However the universities claimed that both of them had been admitted provisionally
but did not meet the eligibility criteria and thus their admissions were cancelled, The
University’s stance was that “the BCA (Bachelor of Computer Applications)
qualification acquired by the petitioners via ODL (Online Distance Learning) institutions
cannot be equated with the BCA qualification obtained by a student from a traditional
institute/college”.

4) Mr. Kareem obtained his degree from Indra Gandhi National Open University
(IGNOU) while Ms. Kaur had obtained her degree from School of Open and Distant
Learning, Jamia Hamdard.

5) Both of them enrolled in the year 2016 and passed out in middle of June 2019. In and
about June 2019, the petitioners took the NIT MCA Common Entrance Test (NIMCET),
2019 and secured 3696 (Mr. Kareem) and 5136 (Ms. Kaur) respectively, in all India
merit list.

6)Having cleared the 2019 Entrance Exam, the petitioners, on 10.07.2019, filed their
applications with the University via the prescribed online mode accompanied by
requisite counselling fee of Rs. 1000/- and disclosed the facts in the applications that
they had obtained the BCA degree via ODL.

7)Since the petitioners fell in the reserved category, they were called for document
verification. Ms. Kaur was asked to report on 13.07.2019, while Mr. Kareem was to
report on 17.07.2019.And later on, communicated their preference for seeking
admissions in the desirous Universities.

8) Resultantly, the University issued a Provisional Offer Letter (POL) in favor of the
petitioners. In the case of Mr. Kareem, the POL was issued on 30.07.2019, while Ms.
 Kaur was issued the POL on 26.07.2019. The petitioners were required to deposit a part-
academic fee amounting to Rs. 40,000/- with the University to become eligible to enter
the admission arena. Ms. Kaur made this payment on 26.07.2019, while Mr. Kareem
deposited the said amount on 27.07.2019.

9)Within ten days or so, the University issued a notification dated 05.08.2019 wherein,
inter alia, it provided the schedule for reporting qua candidates who had been allotted a
seat in various institutes/colleges with the documents comprising of part-academic fee
receipt, marksheets and certificates in original from Grade-X onwards. One set of
photocopies of such marksheets and certificates duly attested by a Gazetted Officer or
self-attested, which had to be submitted to the University at the time of verification of
the documents.

10)As required, the petitioners reported to their respective institutes/colleges. After the
verification petitioners deposited the balance academic fee with their respective
institutes. Mr. Kareem deposited Rs. 28,000/- with CDAC on 05.08.2019, while Ms.
Kaur deposited Rs. 1,24,000/- on 08.08.2019 with IITM.

11)Since the petitioners had obtained admission, they attended classes concerning the
MCA program in their respective institutes/colleges. Mr. Kareem asserted that he
attended classes regularly between 13.08.2019 and 1st week of September 2019, while
Ms. Kaur claims she attended classes between 16.08.2019 and 16.09.2019.

12) However, Mr. Kareem was debarred from attending classes from 19.09.2019, while
Ms. Kaur suffered a similar fate with effect from 16.09.2019.

13) Ms. Kaur before approaching the Court had filed a petition with the Public
Grievance Commission (PGC). The PGC through an order dated 10.10.2019,
recommended to the University that it should revisit its decision of cancelling the
admission granted to Ms. Kaur. Since the University did not comply, Ms. Kaur decided
to filea writ petition. Mr. Kareemapproached this Court directly by way of the captioned
petition (W.P. (C) 10522/2019).

**note that the aspect as to whether the BCA degree issued by aforementioned ODL
institutions was at par with that issued by a traditional institute/college was purportedly
dealt with by the Equivalence Committee (EC) of the University, its conclusion did not
favor the petitioners.

 ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT:

 1)Rule out whether there was any flaw in the determination of admissions to the
petitionersand mediate the issue between the University and the petitioners.

 RATIO OF THE COMMISION:

1)Arguments on behalf of Mr. Kareem and Ms. Kaur were advanced by Mr. Ankit
Yadav (Advocate) and Mr. Vivek B. Saharya (Advocate). It was highlighted that both
Ms. Kaur and Mr. Kareem had made a complete disclosure at the time of filing their
respective application to gain admission to the MCA program concerning their basic
qualification. Moreover, the balance academic fee was deposited by Ms. Kaur and Mr.
Kareem with their respective institutes as well as the documents having been verified,
the petitioners were granted admission in the respective institutes.

2) The plea put forth on behalf of the University that the BCA qualification obtained by
the petitioners via ODL universities was not at par with BCA qualification offered by
traditional Universities was clearly lacking in merit given the fact that the petitioners sat
for 2019 Entrance Exam and had their knowledge base tested along with those
candidates who had acquired their BCA qualification from traditional
universities/institutes/colleges.Also, the clause 2.1.3 of the Admission Brochure violated
the principle of equality as engrafted by Article 14 of the Constitution.

3) Mr. Saharya in support of his submissions relied on the following judgements:

 Kanishka Aggarwal V/s University of Delhi and Ors. AIR 1992 DELHI 105.
 Javed Akhtar and Anr v/s Jamia Hamdard and Anr, 2007.

4) Mr. Bidhuri, on behalf of the university highlighted that Up until academic session
2019-2020. the University was conducting its own Common Entrance Test. It is for the
first time that for various courses, the University adopted the rank obtained by candidates
in other All India examinations. Therefore, candidates who had acquired their BCA
qualification from ODL institute/colleges were also allowed to sit for 2019 Entrance
Exam.Also, the University is entitled to cancel the admission, at any stage, inter alia, on
the ground that a candidate did not fulfil the eligibility criteria. The petitioners were duty
bound to accept not only the eligibility criteria provided in Clause 2.1.3 of the Admission
Brochure but also the decision taken by the EC.The petitioners were duty bound to
accept not only the eligibility criteria provided in Clause 2.1.3 of the Admission
Brochure but also the decision taken by the EC.

5) The verification carried out on 13.07.2019 in case of Ms. Kaur and on 17.07.2019 in
case of Mr. Kareem was concerning the documents which established their minority
status. At that stage, verification of documents involving the petitioners’ basic
qualification was not carried out. Verification as regards the documents was carried out
 on 08.08.2019 in case of Ms. Kaur and on 05.08.2019 in case of Mr. Kareem when they
reported to their respective institutes i.e. IITM and CDAC, resulting in their cancellation
of admission as under clause 2.1.3 under Admission Brochure.

6)Mr. Bidhuri relied on the following judgements:

 Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University vs. Ram Narayan Tiwari, 2018.
 Visveswaraya Technological University & Anr. Vs. Krishnendu Haider &
Ors., 2011.
 Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) vs. State of Punjab, 2019.
 Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another, 2009.

7) Mr. ApoorvKurup appeared for the UGC. Insofar as the UGC was concerned,
whether a student acquires his BCA qualification from a traditional University or an
ODL institution, he/she will be awarded a “degree” either by the University established
or incorporated by or under the Central Act or a provincial Act or a State Act or by an
institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the 1956 Act.

8) Reliance was placed on the following judgements:

 Abdul Motin vs. ManisankarMaiti and Ors., 2018.

 Annamalai University vs. Secretary to Government, Information and
Tourism, Department and Others, 2009.
 Basic Education Board, U.P. vs. Upendra Rai and Others, 2008.
 Janet Jeyapaul vs. SRM University and Others, 2015.
 KumariShrilekhaVidhyathi and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, 1991.
 Prof. Yashpal and Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, 2005.
 State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Lata Arun, 2002.

 DECISION HELD BY COURT:

1)The Court observed and highlighted that, it was right on behalf of the petitioners and
Mr. Krupp, the University had treated equals as unequal. The classification between the
students who had acquired their BCA qualifications via ODL institutions as against those
who acquired the same through traditional universities is not based on any intelligible
differentia.

2) Therefore, Clause 2.1.3 of the Admission Brochure falls foul of Article 14 of the
Constitution and hence was struck down since it denied admission to those candidates
who have acquired their basic BCA qualifications via ODL institutions.
3)Ms. Kaur and Mr. Kareem were granted admission to the MCA program in IITM and
CDAC respectivelyand relief granted in the captioned petitions, insofar as academic
session 2019-2020 was concerned, was restricted only to the petitioners as other
candidates whose admission was cancelled chose not to approach the court.