Delhi HC allows 7 students to attend St Stephen’s College

The Delhi high court on Tuesday allowed seven students, who were earlier granted admission in St Stephen’s College by an order of a single-judge bench, to attend classes till further orders even as it restrained the Delhi University (DU) from allocating further seats in the institute.
A bench led by acting chief justice Manmohan permitted the students to attend the classes on being informed that six students had started attending classes at Stephen’s, even as the college was yet to accept the fees of one student who was granted admission under the “single girl child” quota.
The bench, also comprising justice Tushar Rao Gedela, also issued notice in the petition filed by St Stephen’s against an order passed by the single-judge bench granting admission to the students and upholding DU’s policy to allocate extra seats in initial rounds of the admission process, and fixed January 28 as the next date of hearing.
“Keeping in view the aforesaid, the matter requires consideration. Issue notice. The seven students who have approached this court are permitted to attend classes till further orders. However, it is directed that the university shall not make any further allocation,” the court said in the order.
St Stephen’s on Monday approached the division bench of the high court, challenging the September 6 order passed by a single-judge bench of justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to admit seven students whose admission was in limbo due to a dispute between the college and DU.
In its challenge, St Stephen’s painted a picture that the judge misunderstood the intent and purpose of over-allocation of seats in the initial rounds of admission, and violated its fundamental right to administer the college by directing admission to the students.
During the hearing on Tuesday, Stephens’s counsel asserted that implementation of the order would create a severe burden on the college. The counsel further added that treating 13 BA programmes as separate and distinct would lead to creation of extra seats, disturb the student-teacher ratio, and thereby create an onerous burden on the college.
DU, represented by advocate Mohinder Rupal, contended that the extra allocation had never led to violation of the student-teacher ratio. He also pointed out that the college in the last two years had allocated 20% extra seats but had issues with 5% extra allocation this year. The counsel further asserted that the college had never raised objections to the CSAS earlier and raised objections after the first round of allocation.