Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The petition was preferred by an Associate Professor in the college, Nandita Narain. She had alleged that the cut-off marks for Christian reserved category candidates were artificially high and illegal. It was contended that the College was guilty of "having neglected its own guidelines", specifically Clause 11 of its Admission Guidelines, in declaring the cut-off marks, thereby denying admission to such candidates. The College argued that the admission exercise was not a mere matter of arithmetic and was based on harmony of several considerations. It was further contended that Clause 11 of the Admission Guidelines dealt with the ratio of "the number of candidates called for the interview and the written exam to the number of seats available" and was essentially discretionary and for the guidance of the Principal, whose decision was final. A Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice C Hari Shankar opined that the petition was devoid of any merit. It observed that that no illegality could be said to have been committed by the College. Further observed that fixation of cut-offs for admission of students to an educational institution, unless governed by some binding statutory or quasi-statutory directive, was essentially a matter for the institution to decide. The Court stated that the College kept in mind various competing considerations while deciding on the number of candidates to be called for the written test and interview as well as the various “reserved quotas” and that process did not warrant any interference. The Court thus decreed, "The writ petition is, therefore, devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed".
86540
103860
630
114
59824