Today(9th September), St. Stephen’s College has challenged a Delhi High Court order granting admission to seven students based on Delhi University’s seat allocation. The Delhi High Court had previously directed the college to admit students who were denied entry despite meeting eligibility criteria, and the Division Bench will hear the college’s appeal on Tuesday.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(9th September), St. Stephen’s College challenged a Delhi High Court single bench order that granted admission to seven students based on Delhi University’s seat allocation. The matter was presented before the Division Bench, headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, who have agreed to hear the case on Tuesday.
On Friday(6th September), The Delhi High Court instructed St. Stephen’s College to admit students who were denied admission despite meeting all eligibility and merit-based criteria. The court, while addressing several writ petitions filed by students, directed the prestigious institution to grant them admission for their chosen courses. These students had been deemed eligible by Delhi University (DU) under the Common Seat Allocation System (CSAS) 2024, but the college had refused their applications due to a dispute over seat allocation policies.
The court’s decision, delivered by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, was aimed at ensuring that students who had qualified for admissions under the university’s guidelines were not denied their rightful seats due to discrepancies between the college and university. The case involved several critical legal questions regarding the seat allocation process, the treatment of minority quotas, and the manner of rounding off fractional numbers in seat allocations.
Justice Sharma emphasized the importance of fair treatment of students in the context of seat allocations, stating-
“Learned Senior Counsel for the College argued that while degrees are not rounded off from 59.40% to 60%, marksheets and human beings are fundamentally different and should be treated as such. The Court opined that the treatment of fractions in seat allocations cannot be equated with mathematical calculations for marks. Thus, in seat allocations, fractions like 1.2, 1.3, or 1.4 should be rounded up to 2, as humans cannot be divided into fractions, and rounding down would undermine the policy’s intent.”
Background
The case stems from the Common University Entrance Test (CUET) held between February and April 2024. The petitioners, students who had applied and passed the entrance exam, had their applications processed under the CUET guidelines. The results of the CUET were followed by the commencement of the CSAS Phase I, during which the petitioners were allocated seats at St. Stephen’s College. However, despite being allocated seats and having completed all necessary formalities, the college neither approved nor rejected their applications, leaving the students in limbo.
The petitioners approached the High Court, fearing the loss of an academic year, as their admission status remained unresolved.
The court had to consider several pressing questions, including:
- Whether St. Stephen’s College’s 13 B.A. programs should be treated as distinct courses or a unified B.A. program for seat allocation under the Christian Minority category and the Unreserved category.
- Whether Delhi University had the authority to allocate 5% extra students to St. Stephen’s College and if this allocation adhered to the agreed terms.
- How to handle fractional numbers during seat allocations—whether to round them up or down.
- The constitutionality of the ‘Single Girl Child Quota’ and whether the court had jurisdiction to adjudicate its validity.
- Whether students should be denied admission due to disputes between the College and University, despite fulfilling all eligibility requirements.
Court’s Analysis on Key Issues
1. Separate B.A. Programs or a Unified Program?
The court rejected the college’s argument that the 13 B.A. programs offered should be considered as part of a single program.
Instead, it observed-
“… this Court cannot accept the respondent no. 3 College’s argument that these thirteen courses are merely different subject combinations within one B.A. program and should not be treated as separate B.A. programs. Given St. Stephen’s College’s preparation of a distinct seat matrix and separate cut-off marks for each B.A. program, the Court finds that these thirteen B.A. programs must be regarded as separate and distinct for seat allocation and admissions under both the Christian Minority and Unreserved categories.”
2. 5% Extra Seat Allocation
On the second issue, the court found that the university’s policy of allocating extra students in the initial rounds of CSAS was legally sound and had been implemented to ensure that seats were filled efficiently. This policy allowed for the over-allocation of students to avoid delays in commencing the academic year. The court remarked-
“Therefore, the argument by respondent no. 3, St. Stephen’s College, that Delhi University’s policy of allocating extra students in the initial round is unlawful and arbitrary, lacks merit.”
The court further noted that St. Stephen’s College had adhered to this policy in previous academic years without raising objections, and therefore, their challenge to the policy during these proceedings was unjustified.
3. Rounding Off Fractions
Addressing the issue of fractional numbers in the 5% extra seat allocation, the court held that fractions below 0.5 should be rounded up to the nearest whole number. The rationale was based on fairness in the allocation of seats to students. Justice Sharma noted-
“Fractions in the context of human seat allocations should not be treated the same way as they are in mathematical calculations for marks on a marksheet.”
4. Single Girl Child Quota
Regarding the Single Girl Child Quota, the court ruled that since St. Stephen’s College had already accepted and admitted students under this quota without raising objections, it could not now claim that the policy was unconstitutional.
The judgment stated-
“… the College itself acknowledges that it has fulfilled its commitment by, among other actions, admitting candidates under newly established categories, including the Single Girl Child quota, in each of its programs.”
5. Student’s Rights Amidst Institutional Disputes
The court was clear that the students had fulfilled all requirements and should not have been penalized for the ongoing dispute between the college and university. It expressed concern that the petitioners had been unfairly denied their right to admission due to the internal conflict over seat allocation.
The court said-
“On one hand, the petitioners faced uncertainty about securing admission to their preferred college, St. Stephen’s, and on the other hand, they were also deprived of the opportunity to choose and select their second-choice college.”
In its final directive, the court ordered St. Stephen’s College to grant admission to the petitioners in accordance with the CSAS 2024 policy. The students, the court reasoned, had a legitimate expectation of being admitted based on their merit and eligibility.
“… respondent no. 3, St. Stephen’s College, is directed to admit the petitioners according to the University’s allocation policy, which the College has adhered to in previous academic years.”
-the court concluded.