Sometimes you will have to take the cookie while it crumbles: Delhi HC to a student who argued against the 100% cut of the DU
Dismissing a petition challenging Delhi University’s admissions policy for undergraduate courses, Delhi High Court said on Monday that some state councils may have developed different ways of assessing students in class XII , resulting in some variation in average scores, but that does not make the university’s admission criteria “patently arbitrary” to require writs court interference.
The court made the observations in the order dismissing the petition, which requested a suspension of admissions to UG courses on the grounds that the state councils’ grading system did not comply with the scheme approved by the Supreme Court for the CBSE . The petition also said that while a large number of state council students scored 100 percent of grades, only 550 CBSE students scored over 99 percent.
As a result, the college admission thresholds at the University of Delhi have increased to 100%, according to the petition, while claiming that the policy is inherently discriminatory against CBSE students. The petitioner requested a scaling mechanism to equalize or moderate the scores obtained by students on different examination boards.
However, the court said the applicant – a CBSE student who achieved 98% of grades in Class XII and could not be admitted as part of her choice due to the 100% limit – did not not been able to demonstrate any practice in previous years, which may support his argument that the university is required to take into account differences in marks awarded by different boards when determining the threshold for admission to the first cycle.
“The petitioner’s grievance regarding the evaluation of the current year is also untenable. Due to the pandemic and in a situation where it was not possible to organize examinations, the CBSE proposed an alternative evaluation regime, which was in fact approved by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that, subject to the incorporation of a dispute settlement mechanism and a time limit, the regime would be an appropriate means of evaluation, ”said Justice Prateek Jalan in the arrangement.
When the applicant’s lawyer argued that a disproportionate number of applicants from Kerala were admitted to Delhi, the court said it could not decide on the number of students, who should be from Delhi or any other place. “I say that the rationalization that you give … is it a post hoc rationalization which” because it leads to the admission of X number of students from a particular council, so it shows that there is something is wrong with the admissions process, ”observed the researcher.
The Delhi University lawyer argued that the admissions process was followed throughout and he could not discriminate between different boards. “This was the policy we adopted for all times to come; now the point is that if there are more students who got 100 percent marks by a particular board, being a central university, we cannot deprive them. Being a central university, we must invite applications from all boards, ”submitted the lawyer representing the university.
When the petitioner, a student from Chennai, herself went to court and argued that her right to equality was being violated, the court said: “As you get older you sometimes have to take the cookie when it collapses. Some years, a particular advice may have better results, a particular advice may have worse results. We have to accept this.
The court further told the student that she was admitted to a good college and a good course. “There is no reason to be discouraged. If you want to major in economics, I’m sure there are other colleges where you will get admissions with the kind of grades you got. There are a number of other colleges, great universities all over India. Please don’t be discouraged by not entering a particular college. You are a young person, your whole life is in front of you. Seize the opportunities you get and make the most of them, ”he said, addressing the petitioner.
The petitioner, an 18-year-old, said in her plea that she had applied to universities abroad and had also received letters of offer, but wished to study at the University of Delhi. She told the court that she was able to get into a bachelor’s degree program at Lady Shri Ram College, but wanted to study a bachelor’s degree (with distinction) in economics.