Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 1689
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
VISHAL - Petitioner
Versus
JOINT SEAT ALLOCATION AUTHORITY & ORS. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 7297 of 2018
Decided On : 23-07-2018
For the Petitioner:Mr.Kapil Sankhla, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Arjun Mitra, Advocate.
The judgment established the principle that while merit-based admissions are important, procedural rules for seat allocation must also be upheld.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Admission to Educational Institution - JEE (Main) and JEE (Advanced) - 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 of XVII PROVISIONAL OFFER OF SEAT AND ITS CONFIRMATION - The court discussed the petitioner's request for a writ of Mandamus to allocate a seat based on merit and the respondent's argument based on the Business Rules for Joint Seat Allocation. The key legal provisions discussed were 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 of XVII PROVISIONAL OFFER OF SEAT AND ITS CONFIRMATION, which outlined the procedure for seat acceptance and rejection. The court emphasized the importance of merit-based admissions but also upheld the procedural rules for seat allocation, ultimately dismissing the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus to allocate a seat based on merit in an educational institution after being unable to participate in counseling due to illness. The respondent argued that the petitioner's failure to deposit the seat acceptance fee and participate in counseling led to the rejection of the seat offer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's inability to participate in counseling and subsequent rejection of the seat offer did not warrant a writ of Mandamus to allocate a seat, as it would contravene the procedural rules for seat acceptance.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's request for a writ of Mandamus to allocate a seat based on merit and the respondent's adherence to the procedural rules for seat acceptance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of merit-based admissions but upheld the procedural rules for seat allocation, ultimately dismissing the petition.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed by the court.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays as follows:-
“(a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, directing the Respondent No. 1 allocate a seat to the petitioner on his merits; and/or
(b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, further directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to appear/sit for the subsequent rounds of counseling;
(c) Issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ further directing the Respondents to reserve a seat/admission for the Petitioner in the institute and stream that the petitioner deserved on the basis of merit;
(d) Pass an ad-interim stay in favour of the Petitioners thereby directing the Respondent to stay the process of Counseling.”
2. The facts as are necessary for the adjudication of the present proceedings are briefly adumbrated as follows:-
(a) The petitioner passed 12th Standard through Central Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as ‘CBSE’), in the Non-Medical stream and secured 93% marks. The petitioner is stated to have filled the requisite forms for JEE (Main) examination and received his admit card from the respondent No. 1, in this behalf.
(b) Subsequent upon qualifying the JEE (Main) 2018 examination successfully, the petitioner filled the application form for JEE (Advanced) 2018 examination, to be held on 20th May, 2018.
(c) Upon declaration of the results of the JEE (Advanced) 2018 examination on 10th June, 2018, the petitioner was informed that he had cleared the examination and had further secured 903rd rank in the SC category.
(d) The petitioner is stated to have duly filled his preferences and choice of institutes and courses offered by the institutes, in terms of the guidelines and schedule, published by the respondent No. 1.
(e) In terms of the prescribed schedule, the petitioner participated online in the mock trials and rounds of counseling, conducted by the respondent No. 1.
(f) In terms of the result of the Mock Allotment Round 1, the petitioner was allotted IIT BHU, Mechanical Engineering (5 yrs.) and IIT Roorkee, Chemical Engineering, in the Mock Allotment Round II.
(g) It is an admitted position that, neither did the petitioner deposit the seat acceptance fee in the amount of Rs.15,000/-for candidates belonging to the SC category, nor did he participate in the first round of counseling of seat allocation and admission conducted between 28th June, 2018 to 2nd July, 2018.
3. It is, however, the petitioner’s case that, he was unable to participate in the first round of counseling at the designated Centre, owing to the circumstance that, he was suffering from diarrhea, gastroenteritis and pyrexia and was advised strict bed rest for a week. It is observed in this regard that, no intimation in relation to his inability to appear at the designated Centre for the first round of counseling was ever sent to the official respondent.
4. It is the petitioner’s case that he tried to appear in the second round of counseling conducted on 3rd July, 2018, at the IIT Delhi, but was denied participation. It is further the petitioner’s assertion that he made several phone calls and visited the officials of IIT Delhi, but to no avail.
5. Eventually, the petitioner addressed a communication dated 4th July, 2018, to the Chairman (JoSAA), which he admittedly dispatched on 9th July, 2018, but to no avail.
6. Predicated on the above facts and circumstance, Mr. Kapil Sankhla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would forcefully urge that, admissions to prestigious courses must be based on merit alone and therefore, regardless of his inability to participate in the counseling, as predicated; in view of the circumstance alone that he has secured 903rd rank in the SC category, the petitioner should be granted admission to IIT Roorkee.
7. Mr. Sankhla, learned counsel for the petitioner would canvass the following decisions in support of his submission:
