The Delhi High Court, on Friday, refused to come to the rescue of an LL.M. candidate who had alleged that he could not submit the requisite documents for admission as the University had wrongly awarded him zero marks in one of his LL.B. subjects.
The Bench comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva was hearing a Petition filed by one Mr. Ravi Yadav, who had challenged a judgment passed last month, wherein the Single Judge had rejected his plea for a direction to Delhi University (DU) to accept fee for grant of provisional admission in LL.M. Course and extend the time for submitting documents.
Mr. Yadav had cracked the entrance examination for admission to DU's LL.M. Course. He was, however, awarded zero marks in his Administrative Law course in his 4th semester. He had now contended that it was the University's error that had deprived him of submitting his result in time.
The DU, on the other hand, had produced the answer sheet wherein Mr. Yadav had been awarded zero marks to contend that the University was justified in doing so. It had further submitted Mr. Yadav's admission form to show that he had failed to submit a few documents, including his OBC certificate.
At the outset, the Court noted that no relief in respect of allegations of incorrect marking have been sought in the Petition and hence, refused to go into the issue, directing, "However, a direction is issued to the respondent University to provide a copy of the answer sheet to the appellant, while reserving the rights of the appellant to take recourse to law in respect of the same."
It, however, noted that keeping the issue of the marks aside, Mr. Yadav had also failed to deposit the fee in time, despite there being a four-day online window for the same. It further noted that he had failed to submit other documents, including his OBC certificate in time.
It then ruled, "Even with regard to the opening of the fee portal for payment is concerned, it may be noticed that mere payment of fee would not have entitled the appellant for an admission because the appellant as on the last cut off date did not possess the requisite qualification of a LL.B. degree.
In these circumstances, the action of the University in denying admission to the appellant cannot be faulted. In view of the above, we find no infirmity, in the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, the appeal as well as the pending applications are, accordingly, dismissed."