LexAVINASH SINGH BAGRI AND ORS. versus REGISTRAR IIT DELHI AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 258 A AVINASH SINGH BAGRI AND ORS. v. ~ REGISTRAR llT DELHI AND ANR. (Writ Petition (C) No. 535 of 2008) B AUGUST 12, 2009 [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Education - Reserved category students pursuing c B. Tech. from /IT-Delhi expelled after 1 or 2 years as they failed to achieve the required average credits - Writ petition - Contention raised that the expelled students were being denied the right to pursue their studies - Held: SC & ST are separate class and creamy layer principle is not applicable D to them - Socially and economically backward categories are r to be taken care of at every stage even in specialized institutions like I/Ts - Petitioners entitled to one more opportunity - Respondent-institute directed to consider their case afresh taking note of special features applicable to E reserved categories-. Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.46. Certain reserved category students pu~suing B.Tech. from UT-Delhi were expelled after 1 'or 2 years as they failed to achieve the required average credits. They filed . F writ petition contending that the respondent-institute was denying them the right to pursue their studies on ground of poor performance. The grievance of the petitioners was that inspite of providing reservation in higher education like Medical G and Engineering streams, no coaching or any other facilities are provided to SCISTIOBC candidates to enable ~ them to compete with other general category students, as a result of which, more than 90% SCISTIOBC students are dropped out from these higher courses in first year H 258 AVINASH SINGH BAGRI AND ORS. v. REGISTRAR llT 259 DELHI AND ANR. or second year and as a result a number of reserved A seats in higher courses are lying vacant and unfilled. They also prayed for appropriate directions to the respondent-institute to allow the petitioners to pursue their studies pursuant to the admissions granted to them on the basis of their respective merits. 8 Disposing of the Writ Petitions, the Court I ~ HELD:1.1. Though the petitioners were not able to secure the required credits as against the stipulated minimum requirement for continuation of their studies, it c is relevant to mention that all the petitioners had joined the Institute after clearing All India Joint Entrance Examination conducted jointly for all the llTs. It shows that they were successful in securing the minimum cut- --i off marks earmarked for the SC/ST categories. In such D circumstances, it cannot be claimed that all these students are not fit to be admitted in llT. Also the fact remains that no special or extra coaching or any other facilities were provided to these candidates in these ~ higher courses. [Para 16] [268-A-C] E 1.2. If one analy.zes the credits secured by the petitioners with a requirement of minimum credits in the ' first two years by permitting them to avail summer course and by conducting extra/additional coaching or training F including English subject, it would be possible for them to cross the minimum required credits to attend third year and so on. Though the first respondent has specifically denied that there is any discrimination· on the basis of caste or any complaint was made to the appropriate G authority, the fact remains that additional/extra efforts >-- were not fully afforded to these students in order to compete with the general category students and also secure the minimum required credits in first and second year. [Para 21] [272-8-D] H 260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A 1.3. In view of the instances pointed out before this Court, it is clear that the petitioners were not fully responsible for their expulsion but at the same time, llT- De I hi in order to maintain and continue their high standards of education, implemented certain aspects B which were helpful to the petitioners. But the fact remains that inspite of such efforts, unfortunately, these petitioners were not able to secure the minimum grades. It is not in dispute that SC and ST are separate class by themselves and the creamy layer principle is not c applicable to them. Article 46 of the Constitution enjoins upon the State to promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people and protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. These socially and 0 econo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.