The division bench has ordered the involved parties to submit their responses and filings. Additionally, it has instructed that the students should not be allowed to attend classes at St. Stephen’s College. The HC clarifies St. Stephen’s issue and also moved up the hearing date with the single judge from September 11 to September 5. The single judge had initially planned to hear the case at a later date.
The Delhi High Court has noted that allocating more seats than the available infrastructure would strain the college’s resources. This could lead to difficulties in maintaining the facilities and could overwhelm the existing infrastructure.
Moreover, the HC clarifies St. Stephen’s issue that such an excess in allocation might hinder the institute’s ability to provide quality education. The added burden could affect the learning environment, making it challenging for the institution to uphold its educational standards.
The HC clarifies St. Stephen’s issue while addressing St. Stephen’s College’s claim that Delhi University had allocated more students than the approved number of seats. The college argued that the university had overstepped its bounds by assigning more students than the sanctioned intake.
Delhi University defended its actions, explaining that this was done for convenience. They pointed out that not all students who are allocated seats eventually enrol, leading to some seats remaining vacant. To prevent this, they allocated more students than the sanctioned number.
The court noted that the university had not effectively countered Stephen’s College’s argument about the excessive allocation of seats. The college had argued that the university had allotted more seats than its infrastructure could handle, but the university failed to respond with specific details to refute this claim.
The bench, led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, emphasised that over-allocating seats could strain the college’s limited resources. They warned that this could harm the quality of education and potentially jeopardise the futures of the students affected by such decisions.
The HC clarifies St. Stephen’s issue and issued its order on Thursday, but it was only posted on the court’s website the following day, Friday. The division bench was considering an appeal from the college. The college was challenging an interim order from a single judge, which had directed the college to provisionally admit six students based on the university’s allocation.
The bench observed that while the single judge’s order on August 23 allowed provisional admission to the students, it essentially provided the relief they were seeking in their main petition. Despite this, the bench moved up the hearing date from September 11 to September 5. It also ruled that the six students should not attend classes until their plea is resolved.
The court has decided to expedite the final hearing and balance the situation. Until the writ petition is resolved, the court has directed that the six students involved must not attend classes at the college in question.
Senior advocate Romy Chacko, representing the college, explained that the institution is highly desirable. Students who are assigned to various programs usually accept any course offered to them. As a result, there are often very few, if any, vacancies left after the initial allotment.
After objecting to the policy, the university agreed to limit excess student allocations to 5 percent for each program. However, the senior counsel argued that the university did not adhere to this commitment and allocated more students than allowed.
Advocate Mohinder JS Rupal, representing the university, stated that only 5 percent of additional seats were allocated to the unreserved category in the college. The court criticised the university for exceeding the sanctioned number of students and allotting more than permitted.
The division bench underlined how serious the situation is and said that the university had to understand how its activities affect students’ future employment. They emphasised that the institution should treat this situation seriously and cautioned that it is not one to be taken lightly.
The judges also conveyed optimism that the university will behave more sensibly. Six undergraduate students who had passed the Common University Entrance Test (CUET) and finished all required steps had previously received relief from the sole judge.
