Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur and Others – Appellants
Versus
Soutrik Sarangi and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No..........of 2021, SLP (C) No. 13920 of 2021
Decided On : 28-09-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 136 – Institutes of Technology Act, 1961 – Section 33(2)(b) – Leave granted – Petitioner, is aggrieved by a judgment of single judge of Calcutta High Court1 which allowed a writ petition, filed by respondent herein holding that rejection of his candidature for admission to Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) Advanced, was not justified and further directing IIT to decide issue afresh, and till its decision was taken, permit him to register for JEE and appear in examination if no decision were taken –Held, In this Court’s opinion, given that Criteria No. 5 is a part of information Brochure, settled as a condition of admission in terms of JoSAA Rules of 2020 meant that all IITs had adopted a uniform criteria of not permitting candidates who were successful in a previous year but did not pursue their course and did not opt out of taking another chance in subsequent year – This was a binding norm applicable to all IIT institutions – If one considers fact that JEE (Advanced) is governed by rules framed under Act, and regulations, further detail that it permitted non-IIT candidates who were admitted in a previous year (but did not pursue their course nor withdrew option in a previous year) is logical. Such non-IIT institutions are not governed by Act and regulations framed under it or even for that matter JoSAA Business Rules. Furthermore, in opinion of this Court, securing a seat in any one of the 23 IITs stands on a different footing than securing a seat in non-IIT institution – This is not to in any manner undermine worth or academic curricula or ranking of such non-IIT institutions – Classification of IITs, on the one hand and non-IIT institutions on the other hand is warranted – This Court does not wish to emphasise this aspect further except to say that classification is justified both statutorily and in terms of Parliamentary declaration that Act was conceived as one meant to set-up institutions of excellence having national status – This Court hold Criterion 5 to be valid, aimed at conserving a valuable public resource, i.e. seats in IITs – Writ petition o dismissed.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted. With consent, counsel for both parties were heard finally, for disposal of the appeal.
2. The petitioner, (hereafter variously “IIT” or “the Institute”) is aggrieved by a judgment of the single judge of the Calcutta High Court1 [WPA No. 11673/2020 decided on 25.08.2021] which allowed a writ petition, filed by the respondent herein (hereafter called by his name “Soutrik”) holding that the rejection of his candidature for admission to the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) Advanced, was not justified and further directing the IIT to decide the issue afresh, and till its decision was taken, permit him to register for the JEE and appear in the examination if no decision were taken.
3. Soutrik appeared in the Joint Entrance Examination (Main), 2020 and on the basis of the percentile obtained by him was qualified and eligible to appear in the JEE (Advanced), 2020. He scored rank 4015 which was not up to his expectation. He participated in the counselling process for admission in the institute and secured admission in the Chemical Engineering Dual Course, at IIT Kharagpur. The common entrance examination system for the 23 IITs is based on the JEE (Main) examination, conducted by the National Testing Agency in four phases, which culminates in a merit list drawn up for students vying for admission in the 23 IITs and 87 National Institute of Technologies (NITs), Indian Institute of Information Technology (IIIT) and certain government funded institutes. The four phases of these JEE (Main) examinations are conducted on various dates. Amongst those who compete for the JEE (Main) exam, those falling in the top 2.5 lakhs of those students, based on merit are allowed to register for admission to the JEE (Advanced) examination.
4. Soutrik wished to appear in JEE, 2021 to secure admission to a course of his choice, but the eligibility criteria for appearing in JEE (Advanced), 2021 prevented him from doing so. The eligibility criteria, is so framed that a candidate can attempt JEE (Advanced) a maximum of two times in consecutive years irrespective of whether or not he passed the qualifying examination. It further stipulates that a candidate who had taken admission in any institute other than IITs in 2020 is eligible to appear in JEE (Advanced), 2021 provided she or he satisfies other eligibility criteria. In view of the aforesaid restriction Soutrik could not compete in JEE (Advanced), 2021 as he got himself admitted in IIT Kharagpur in the year 2020. In these circumstances, he approached the court, complaining arbitrariness and also challenging the concerned eligibility criteria.
5. The IIT which resisted the writ petition justified the impugned criterion, i.e. No. 5, contending that it was neither illegal nor unconstitutional and was based on sound public policy considerations. It was argued that the JEE (Advanced) Information Brochure contained uniform criteria applicable to all candidates appearing for the competitive examination for admission to IITs. It was submitted that the withdrawal option was so designed as to achieve two primary objectives, firstly, avoidance of wastage or blockage of seats and consequently to enable students to improve their performance in the subsequent year and if eligible, to participate again. It was, therefore, argued that in the event the candidate did not exercise an option and did not reject the seat already accepted, her or his candidature would be precluded for the subsequent year for the reason that in the year that she did not opt to continue in the course, it would not have been possible to fill up the seat for the rest of the course.
6. It was further pointed out that conditions such as Criteria No. 5 is in the public domain from 06.03.2020, on the one hand and that similar provisions were consistently followed and applied for over five years. Pointing out that the JEE (Advanced) was conducted on 27.09.2020 involving six rounds of counselling which finally concluded on 07.11.2020 for
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
