Delhi HC imposes Rs 75,000 costs on JNU for complete lack of assistance in a case

The Delhi High Court has imposed costs of Rs 75,000 on the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in view of complete lack of assistance tendered by it in a 2018 case concerning admission to the M.Sc P.hd integrated programme. (Nishant Khatri vs JNU).The order was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher in a petition by an aspirant, Nishant Khatri (Petitioner). .It was the Petitioner’s case that as per clause 3.2 of the Admission Policy, he was required to secure 35% of 70 marks in the entrance exam for the M.Sc P.hd integrated course to be called for the viva voce. .He was, however, not called for the viva voce round in spite of crossing the threshold by obtaining 35 marks out of 70..JNU justified its stand on the ground that as per Clause 3.3 of the Admission Policy, the number of aspirants that could be called for the viva voce was restricted to “around” three times the available vacancies..Since there were only 8 vacancies, only 25 candidates were called..At this juncture, the Court pointed out that Clause 3.3 was “framed rather ineptly”..On the one hand, it uses the expression “the maximum number of candidates to be called for viva voce for admission to each programme” and then goes on to say that “around three times of the intake in each field of study”.Delhi High Court.The Court further noted that it was not in dispute that against the total number of 8 vacancies in the unreserved category, JNU had filled up 9..On being informed that the additional seat was filled up against the physically handicapped category, the Court responded,.“I have not been able to get any answer as to how this modality could have been followed by JNU to admit 9 candidates in the unreserved category as against 8 vacancies by sequestering 1 vacancy from physically handicapped category.”Delhi High court.The Court also pointed out that even out of the 25 candidates which were called for the viva voce, 9 were OBC candidates and therefore, effectively, the general category candidates who were invited were only 16..The petitioner added that out of the 16 candidates, four candidates had not even made it to the top 150 candidates in the merit list..In defence, JNU referred to Clause 6.4 of the Admission Policy which stated that reserved category candidates who are selected on their own merit were not counted under reserved quota..The Court said,“..to my mind, there is merit in the submission of the petitioner that Clause 6.4 could have been taken recourse to by JNU only after candidates were selected after the viva voce was completed and not before..".The Court further noted that as far as the “misalignment” between the information contained in the merit list and the information obtained by the Petitioner via the RTI route was concerned, no satisfactory answer was given by JNU..However, since the Petitioner had “moved on in life”, the Court observed that the prayer with respect to cancellation of the admission process and re-conduction of the counselling/interview had been rendered inefficacious..The Petitioner had also claimed compensation of Rs 1 crore but the Court opined that the same cannot be granted in writ proceedings..“Loss suffered will have to be established by the petitioner, in an appropriate proceeding, by placing on record relevant material.”Delhi High court.The Court, nonetheless, awarded Rs 75, 000 to the Petitioner as costs..“However, in view of the complete lack of assistance by JNU and the fact that the petitioner had to approach this Court for relief, JNU is directed to pay the petitioner towards costs Rs.75,000/-. Cost will be paid within the next two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.”Delhi High Court.It clarified that the Petitioner was free to take recourse to any other remedy available to him in law to pursue his claim for compensation. Petitioner appeared in person. JNU was represented by Advocates Harsh Ahuja and Kushal Kumar. . Read the Order:

Delhi HC imposes Rs 75,000 costs on JNU for complete lack of assistance in a case

Related Stories