IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.
Shambhavi Kejriwal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Through Its Director – Respondent
W.P.(C) 9380 of 2023 and CM Appls. 35702-35703 of 2023
Decided On : 21-07-2023
JoSAA - Seat Allocation - Rule 41, Rule 42 - The court discussed Rule 41 and Rule 42 of the JoSAA 2023 Business Rules, emphasizing the candidate's responsibility to complete online reporting and pay the seat acceptance fee to confirm the allocated seat. Non-payment of the fee would lead to cancellation of the seat and exclusion from further rounds of seat allocation. The court referred to previous judgments and highlighted the mandatory nature of paying the seat acceptance fee and the consequences of non-payment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought directions to participate in ongoing seat allocation rounds of JoSAA 2023 based on her JEE (Advanced) 2023 ranking. She failed to deposit the seat acceptance fees after being provisionally allotted a seat and argued that contradictory instructions did not clearly indicate the consequences of non-payment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that non-payment of the seat acceptance fees led to cancellation of the allocated seat and exclusion from further rounds of seat allocation, as per Rule 42 of JoSAA 2023 Business Rules. The petitioner's failure to complete the required steps for seat confirmation resulted in the cancellation of the seat offered to her.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's contention that non-payment of seat acceptance fees did not clearly indicate exclusion from further rounds of seat allocation, and therefore, she should be allowed to participate in subsequent rounds.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Rule 42 of JoSAA 2023 Business Rules, previous judgments, and specific instructions on the JoSAA website to establish the mandatory nature of paying the seat acceptance fee and the consequences of non-payment, leading to the rejection of the allocated seat and exclusion from further rounds of seat allocation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner's failure to deposit the seat acceptance fees as required by the rules and instructions resulted in the cancellation of the allocated seat, and therefore, no directions for allowing the petitioner to participate in further rounds of counselling were passed.
JUDGMENT
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking directions to the respondent-authorities to forthwith permit the petitioner to participate in the ongoing seat allocation rounds of the Joint Seat Allocation Authority (in short `JoSAA') 2023 on the basis of her ranking in the JEE (Advanced) 2023.
2. The facts of the case would show that the petitioner had appeared in JEE (Advanced) 2023 examination as her last attempt. The petitioner successfully qualified in JEE (Advanced) 2023 examination, held on 21.06.2023 and she secured All India Rank 18833.
3. On 30.06.2023, the petitioner filled up her choices for Architecture Aptitude Test (in short `AAT') qualified programmes in JoSAA 2023 portal. The petitioner was provisionally allotted 4-years B.Sc. course in (Exploration Geophysics) in the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur (in short `IIT Kharagpur'). The said institute was petitioner's choice no.100. The Initial Seat Allotment Intimation Slip dated 30.06.2023 was issued by respondent no.2.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that on account of contradictory instructions, the petitioner did not properly understand as to what steps were required to be taken to opt for another round of counselling and accordingly the petitioner could not deposit the seat acceptance fees, which was a sum of Rs.40,000/- for General category candidates.
5. The petitioner states that on the basis of her merit position she had the possibility of getting a better option and for that reason, she wanted to opt for another round of counselling and, therefore, the seat acceptance fees of Rs.40,000/- was not deposited. The petitioner states that since the reading of the rules nowhere indicate that if the seat acceptance fees is not deposited, the petitioner would be out of the entire counselling process.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has taken this court through various instructions and has indicated that even three SMS which were sent to the petitioner do not suggest that the petitioner would be out of the entire counselling process, on the contrary, it was intimated that the allocated seat would be cancelled. The petitioner did not have any objection with respect to the cancellation of the allocated seat as the petitioner desired for subsequent round of counselling and therefore, the petitioner did not respond.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that even Rule 56 of the JoSAA 2023 Business Rules is advisory in nature and the same only states that in case of non-deposition of seat acceptance fee the allotted seat would be cancelled. He, however, fairly concedes that there are instructions contrary to the SMS and Rule 56 of the JoSAA 2023 in Rule No. 42 of the JoSAA 2023.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prince Jaibir Singh v. Union of India & Ors, SLP(C)No.18995/2021. In addition, he also placed reliance on an interim order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan in W.P.(C)10605/2016.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the petitioner sent an e-mail to JoSAA with respect to the consideration for further rounds in the JoSAA counselling. The e-mail sent by the petitioner on her own if carefully perused, the same would indicate that the petitioner did admit that she might have misunderstood the instructions, however, the same should not result in complete deprivation of participation in the counselling and allotment of seat as per her merit.
10. According to petitioner, since the last date for counselling is 26.07.2023 and she is ready to participate in the remaining round of counselling process from the stage where the counselling is going on. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since this is the last year to participate in JEE (Advanced) and the petitioner is ready and willing to opt for the seat whichever is offered to her on the ba
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.
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.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Clause 1.5 of Chapter 1 of the NEET-PG (MD/MS/DNB/MDS) Counselling, 2023, which restricts candidates from par....
The judgment emphasized the authority of academic bodies in setting admission criteria and the limited scope of judicial review in such matters, as established in the judgments of the Supreme Court.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.