Court rejects plea for centralized counselling, affirms transparency in admissions under the Delhi Professional Colleges Act, 2007.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging Rule 8(2)(a)(v) of the Delhi Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee and Other Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence) Rules, 2007. This rule permits private unaided institutions to fill 10% of their total seats under the Management Quota through a merit list derived from candidates who have qualified the Common Entrance Test (CET), without the necessity for centralized counselling.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia concluded that Rule 8(2)(a)(v) aligns with the provisions of the Delhi Professional Colleges Act, 2007. The Act empowers institutions to conduct admissions for Management Quota Seats based on merit from CET-qualified candidates, allowing institutions to advertise and admit candidates without centralized counselling.
The petition, filed by Justice For All, represented by advocate Mr. Khagesh B. Jha, argued that Rule 8(2)(a)(v) contradicted Section 2(d) of the Act, which defines CET as inclusive of counselling. The petitioner sought a directive for centralized counselling for all seats, including Management Quota Seats, citing transparency concerns and the need for a merit-based admission process.
However, the Court observed that the Act's scheme permits institutions to independently manage admissions for Management Quota Seats post the counselling process for the remaining 90% of seats. Section 13 of the Act, along with its proviso, allows institutions to fill these seats based on merit at the qualifying examination, reinforcing the rule's validity.
Furthermore, the Court acknowledged the Admission Regulatory Committee (ARC) as the appropriate body to address grievances regarding admission procedures. The ARC, established under Section 4 of the Act, is responsible for regulating admissions and suggesting guidelines to ensure fairness and transparency.
The Court has allowed the petitioner to present their grievances to the ARC, directing that any representation made should be evaluated promptly. This decision highlights the judiciary's stance on maintaining the autonomy of private institutions while ensuring compliance with statutory provisions to uphold equity and excellence in educational admissions.
Bottom line:-
The Delhi Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee and Other Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence) Act, 2007 allows private unaided institutions to fill up 10% Management Quota Seats (MQS) through advertisement and from candidates qualified through Common Entrance Test (CET), without requiring centralized counselling for these seats. Rule 8(2)(a)(v) of the Rules does not violate the provisions of the Act.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 12, 13, 3(t), 4 of the Delhi Professional Colleges or Institutions Act, 2007; Rule 8(2)(a)(v) of Rules, 2007.
