Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vikas Mahajan, J.
Shubham Chauhan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 14355 of 2022
Decided On : 17-02-2023
Seat Acceptance Fee - Admission Cancellation - Rule 41, Rule 55 - The court examined the failure to pay the seat acceptance fee within the prescribed timeline and the subsequent creation of a supernumerary seat for the petitioner. The Business Rules unambiguously provide for strict adherence to the timeline and irreversible seat cancellation for non-payment of the fee. The petitioner's repeated attempts to deposit the fee and the sufficiency of funds were acknowledged, but the court found the failure to deposit the fee was attributable to the petitioner. The court emphasized that the Business Rules do not allow for extension of time and that the petitioner had the option to deposit the fee through cash in a bank, which was not availed. The court also highlighted that the Business Rules were uniformly applied by the respondent. The court cited legal precedents and held that the petitioner's admission in the supernumerary seat should not be disturbed at this stage, considering the petitioner's merit and the fact that the seat could only be utilized by the petitioner. The court directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in the Mathematics and Computing program at IIT (ISM) Dhanbad.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner failed to pay the seat acceptance fee within the prescribed timeline, leading to the cancellation of the provisionally allotted seat. The petitioner made repeated attempts to deposit the fee, but technical reasons prevented the transactions. The petitioner sought an extension of the time frame to deposit the fee, but the respondent refused. The court granted an interim relief allowing the petitioner to deposit the fee, and subsequently, a supernumerary seat was created and allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner continued to pursue the course at the institute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the failure to deposit the fee was attributable to the petitioner, as the Business Rules did not allow for extension of time and provided alternative payment options. The court emphasized the irreversible nature of seat cancellation for non-payment of the fee and the uniform application of the Business Rules by the respondent. The court held that the petitioner's admission in the supernumerary seat should not be disturbed at this stage, considering the petitioner's merit and the fact that the seat could only be utilized by the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was the failure to pay the seat acceptance fee within the prescribed timeline and the subsequent creation of a supernumerary seat for the petitioner. The court also considered the petitioner's plea for an extension of the time frame to deposit the fee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the strict adherence to the timeline and irreversible nature of seat cancellation for non-payment of the fee as per the Business Rules. The court cited legal precedents and held that the petitioner's admission in the supernumerary seat should not be disturbed at this stage, considering the petitioner's merit and the fact that the seat could only be utilized by the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in the Mathematics and Computing program at IIT (ISM) Dhanbad.
JUDGMENT
Vikas Mahajan, J. The Petitioner in the present writ petition is aggrieved by the cancellation of his provisionally allotted seat, on account of his failure to pay the seat acceptance fee by the deadline.
2. The brief facts which led to the filing of the present writ petition are that the Petitioner took the Joint Entrance Exam (Advanced) 2022 and he was declared successful with an All India Rank (AIR) of 5095. The Petitioner being a beneficiary of the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) quota secured GEN-EWS rank 600.
3. Sequel to above, the Petitioner registered himself on the online portal of Joint Seat Allocation Authority 2022 (JoSAA 2022) [Respondent No. 3] and uploaded all requisite documents on the portal. Thereafter, he was provisionally allotted a seat in the `Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad' for the program - `Mathematics and Computing (5 years Integrated Master of Technology) vide Initial Seat Allotment Intimation Slip [Annexure P-3] on 23.09.2022.
4. On being provisionally allotted the seat, the Petitioner was required to complete the steps in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 41 under Section XVIII of the JoSAA Business Rules, 2022 [in short `the Business Rules.]. As per Rule 41, a candidate was required to complete the following three steps for confirming their acceptance of the seat: (i) Accept the seat; (ii) Upload the documents; (iii) Pay the seat acceptance fee.
5. As pleaded in the counter affidavit by the Respondent no.3, the timeline for making the payment for the seat acceptance fee (hereinafter referred to as the fee) in the first round of seat allocation was from September 23, 2022 (10:00 hrs.) till September 26, 2022 (20:00 hrs.)
6. It is the case of the Petitioner that funds were arranged by his father for depositing the fee and twice an attempt was made on 25.09.2022 to deposit the same through the card issued by ICICI Bank but the transaction did not go through.
7. On 26.09.2022, the Petitioner again made attempts to deposit the seat acceptance fee from the account of his father with ICICI Bank but the same was declined. Thereafter, on the same day itself, the Petitioner initially tried twice to deposit the fee from his father's bank account maintained with Indian Bank for which he received OTPs at 15:38 hours and 15:57 hours.
8. As the attempts of the Petitioner to deposit the fee were unsuccessful, the Petitioner invoked the grievance redressal mechanism as set out in Rule 84 of the Business Rules and sent an email to the Respondent no.3 on 26.09.2022 at 04:20 p.m. on its designated mail id i.e. josaa2022@iitb.ac.in whereby he requested for an extension of time by one day or for suggesting any other method. The Respondent no. 3 responded to the said email at 4:52 PM stating that the payment status on the portal will change only after successful payment confirmation and further advising that in case the payment is still not showing successful, then payment ought to be made by using another payment gateway. It was also clarified that there was no issue from server side for payment. The email sent by the Petitioner at 4:20 PM and the response received from JoSAA 2022 at 4:52 PM read as under:
[IMG]
9. Thereafter, the Petitioner again, before the deadline, tried to deposit the fee online on four occasions on 26.09.2022 from his father's account maintained with Indian Bank, for which OTPs were received at 16:23 hours, 19:25 hours, 19:49 hours and 19:52 hours, but the transactions to deposit the seat acceptance fee repeatedly failed.
10. Even after the expiry of the time limit, the Petitioner beseeched the Respondent for an extension of the time frame to deposit the fee. In this regard, an email was sent by the Petitioner at 8:12 PM on 26.09.2022 and another on 27.09.2022 at 9:29 AM.
11. At the end of Round 2 of JoSAA Counselling 2022, the Petitioner on 02.10.2022 sent an email to Respondent no. 3 stating that a seat be allotted to him in Round 3 as he has fill
Strict adherence to the timeline and irreversible seat cancellation for non-payment of the fee as per the Business Rules. The court emphasized the uniform application of the Business Rules and cited ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of the Rules of Business on all participants and the consequences of non-compliance with the grievance redressal mechanism.
Non-payment of the seat acceptance fees as required by the JoSAA 2023 Business Rules leads to cancellation of the allocated seat and exclusion from further rounds of seat allocation.
The judgment emphasizes the need for equitable consideration of students' challenges in making online payments and the importance of addressing technical issues in the admission process.
The Supreme Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 142 to ensure a Dalit student's admission to IIT despite fee payment complications, highlighting issues of justice and the digital divide.
A university cannot deny a student the right to continue studies or withhold examination results based on procedural failures, especially after allowing the student to attend classes and take exams.
A procedural mistake by a student may be excused when it risks depriving a meritorious candidate of their admission, emphasizing the importance of justice over strict adherence to rules.
A candidate's initial acceptance of admission can be revoked before the joining deadline, preserving their eligibility for future vacancies.
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
