Today(10th Sept),The Delhi High Court allowed seven students seeking admission to St. Stephen’s College, based on seats allocated by DU, to attend classes. The court also directed DU to halt further seat allocations until further notice.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(10th Sept),The Delhi High Court allowed seven students, who had filed petitions seeking admission to St. Stephen’s College based on seats allocated by Delhi University (DU), to attend classes.
A division bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela issued an order allowing these students to attend classes but directed Delhi University not to allocate any more seats until further notice.
The bench stated-
“The seven students who approached the court are allowed to attend classes until further notice. However, the university is directed not to make any additional seat allocations.”
The conflict arises from St. Stephen’s College challenging a single-judge decision that granted admission to the seven students based on Delhi University’s (DU) seat allocation system. The college has appealed this ruling, asserting that it should not be compelled to admit students solely based on the seats assigned through DU’s Common Seat Allocation System (CSAS). St. Stephen’s argues that it should retain the right to admit students only within its sanctioned seat capacity.
The court has requested responses from both the university and the seven students who filed the petitions.
They have been given four weeks to submit their replies, with the next hearing set for January 28 of next year.
The students remain in a state of uncertainty. The court has intervened to offer interim relief, following the single-judge ruling on September 6, which recognized the undue hardships these students have endured due to the ongoing dispute between the college and the university.
Single-Judge’s Observations on the Matter
In the September 6 ruling, the single judge highlighted the unfair treatment experienced by the students, who were caught between the conflicting positions of the college and the university.
The judge remarked-
“On one hand, the petitioners faced uncertainty regarding their admission to their preferred college, St. Stephen’s, while on the other hand, they were denied the opportunity to choose and apply to their second-choice college.”
The court further observed how the prolonged indecision in the matter affected the students, stating-
“The extended ‘under-process’ status effectively prevented them from participating in later allocation rounds, causing them to miss out on other potential seat opportunities.”
The seven petitioners were seeking seats in various undergraduate courses, including the BA Economics (Honours) and BA programme, under the “single girl child quota.” According to the university’s admission policy, one seat in each programme at every college is reserved under the “supernumerary quota for a single girl child.”
Dispute Over Seat Allocation and Quota
Despite being allocated seats by DU under this quota, the admissions of these students were not finalized within the given time frame. While Delhi University supported the students’ petition, St. Stephen’s College opposed it, arguing that it is not obligated to admit all students simply based on DU’s allocations through the CSAS system.
The college asserted that it should have the right to admit students only up to the sanctioned number of seats. However, the single judge had noted in the earlier verdict that the seat matrix for the current academic session had been prepared and forwarded by the college itself to DU.
The court pointed out that –
“The seat matrix provided by the college clearly shows that it offered 13 distinct BA programs, each with a specific allocation of seats for different student categories.”
St. Stephen’s College has maintained its stance that the admissions process should not be solely dictated by DU’s allocation system. The college insists that the institution’s own seat matrix should govern the admissions, and it should not be forced to admit students beyond its sanctioned capacity.
The single judge, however, dismissed this argument, noting that the seat allocation for this academic year had been created and submitted by the college itself. The ruling clarified that the college had already agreed to certain allocations and that it cannot now reject students who have been duly assigned seats by DU based on this arrangement.
