The court emphasized the importance of fulfilling the eligibility criteria and completing the necessary steps for seat acceptance as per the applicable scheme of admission, and cited previous judgments to support its decision.

JUDGMENT

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)--The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

"i) Issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash/set aside the Office Memorandum dt.17.03.2023 issued by Govt. of India, Ministry of Education, Dept. of Higher Education; and

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents/National Institute of Technology, Delhi to admit the Petitioner in allocated academic program B-Tech (Computer Science) for the academic session 2023-24 at National Institute of Technology, Delhi."

2. The case of the petitioner is that he appeared in Class XII examination in July, 2022 and obtained 63.2% marks in the said examination. The petitioner in pursuance of the Information Bulletin issued by the National Testing Agency (hereinafter referred to as `NTA') appeared in the Joint Entrance Examination (MAIN)-2023 (hereinafter referred to as `JEE (MAIN)-2023') on 25.01.2023.

3. The result of the first session of the said examination was declared on 06.02.2023. Since the petitioner obtained satisfactory marks, he did not appear in the second session and accordingly, the final result was notified on 29.04.2023.

4. The counsel for the petitioner also states that on 30.06.2023, on the basis of the petitioner's merit, the Seat Allocation Board allocated a seat to him in B.Tech course at respondent no.2-National Institute of Technology, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `NIT, Delhi').

5. The petitioner, thereafter, attempted to complete the formalities to ensure his admission; however, on account of the guidelines issued by respondent no.3-Dean of NIT Delhi on the basis of Government of India (hereinafter referred to as `GoI') Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2023, the petitioner was not granted admission.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the decision to not allow the petitioner to take admission against the allocated seat was devoid of reason. He submits that by way of the Office Memorandum of GoI dated 17.03.2023, the rules for admission have been changed so as to incorporate the requirement of obtaining 75% marks in Class XII examination as an eligibility criterion. He also submits that such a criterion was not insisted upon in earlier academic years and as per the decision of the GoI, the requirement of obtaining 75% marks in Class XII examination remained suspended for two consecutive academic years. He further submits that had there been any inbuilt criterion of obtaining 75% marks in Class XII examination, there was no necessity of issuance of the Office Memorandum on 17.03.2023. According to him, the mere fact of issuance of the Office Memorandum on 17.03.2023 stipulating the requirement of obtaining 75% marks in Class XII examination itself signifies that the respondent nos.1 and 2 amended the eligibility criteria by way of a subsequent Office Memorandum which is impermissible in law.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further states that the petitioner is a highly meritorious candidate and the denial of admission to a meritorious candidate on the basis of a changed criterion would be a casualty of merit and the same would lead to frustration in the mind of a young student. Therefore, this court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may direct the respondents to admit the petitioner against the allocated seat.

8. This court on 04.07.2023, after hearing learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, had directed for issuance of notice to the respondents. This court vide order dated 07.07.2023 had also directed the petitioner to implead Central Seat Allocation Board-2023 (hereinafter referred as `CSAB') as a necessary respondent to the instant petition.

9. Notices were accepted on behalf of the respondents by their respective cou