In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court on Friday directed St Stephen's College to grant admission to seven students allocated seats by Delhi University (DU). The court stated that the students, who were not at fault, had endured undue hardship due to the ongoing dispute between the university and the college. The court emphasized that the indecision had left the petitioners in a state of uncertainty, hindering them from taking further action.


The bench, presided over by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, stated that the petitioners faced a dilemma as their admission to St Stephen’s was uncertain. At the same time, they were deprived of the chance to opt for a second-choice college. The prolonged "under-process" status of their applications prevented them from participating in subsequent allocation rounds, causing them to miss potential opportunities elsewhere.

The court was hearing two separate petitions filed by the seven students, who were seeking admission under DU’s "single girl child" quota. The students had applied for seats in BA Economics (Honours) and BA programme courses, but their admissions were not completed within the stipulated timeframe, despite DU having allocated seats to them through its Common Seat Allocation System (CSAS).

The court ruled that since DU's calculation of seats, including the method of rounding fractions to the higher side, had not been challenged or found faulty, the college was obliged to follow the allocation policy and grant admission to the petitioners. The court also pointed out that St Stephen's had adhered to DU’s seat matrix policy in previous academic years without issue.

"In this court's opinion, the petitioners were not at fault at any point during the admission process but had to face undue hardship due to the ongoing dispute between the university and the college concerning the seat matrix," the judgment read.

The students argued that despite qualifying for seats allocated by the university, the college refused to complete their admissions. The petitioners had applied under DU's supernumerary quota for a single girl child, which reserves one seat in each programme at every college.

While DU supported the students’ petitions, St Stephen’s College opposed them, claiming it could only admit students within its sanctioned limits. The college also contended that the 13 BA programmes offered were merely different subject combinations within a single BA programme, and should not be treated as separate courses for admission purposes.

The court rejected this argument, stating that the 13 BA programmes must be considered separate and distinct for seat allocation under both Christian minority and unreserved categories. It further rejected the college’s claim that the CSAS system had no statutory backing, noting that St Stephen’s had not previously challenged the system.

The court also noted that in previous years, St Stephen’s had agreed to admit 20 percent extra students during the initial rounds of counselling to increase the allocation for Christian students. For the current academic session, DU had reduced this figure to 5 percent, which the court deemed reasonable.

Furthermore, the court dismissed the college’s argument against the single girl child quota, stating that St Stephen’s had adhered to the quota in previous years without raising objections. "Thus, the college cannot now take a contradictory stand before this court to argue that the quota is unconstitutional," the judgment stated.

In its final ruling, the court directed St Stephen’s to admit the petitioners in accordance with DU’s allocation policy. It also advised that in the future, colleges with grievances regarding the seat matrix must communicate with the university at least three months prior to the start of a new academic session. DU, in turn, should resolve such issues within two months to prevent students from facing difficulties.

This ruling marks a significant win for the students and the university, ensuring that the petitioners can proceed with their academic journey without further delay.