The court upheld that an upgrade in seat allocation excludes candidates from participating in subsequent admission rounds, aligning with the established university admission policy.

JUDGMENT

1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of Writ Petition, being W.P.(C) No. 16167/2022, which had been filed by the Appellant herein challenging the decision of the Respondent herein of not permitting her and other similarly situated candidates to participate in spot round counseling, and terming the decision of the Respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, unfair, unwarranted and violative of Article 14, 21 & 41 of the Constitution of India, the instant appeal has been filed.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the Appellant herein passed her 12th standard examination and appeared in the Common University Entrance Test (Under-Graduate)-2022 [hereinafter referred to as `the CUET (UG)- 2022']. It is stated that the Appellant herein registered herself under the Common Seat Allocation System-2022 (hereinafter referred to as `the CSAS-2022') of the University of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `the University'). It is stated that in the first round of counseling, i.e. CSAS Round 1, the Appellant herein was allocated a seat in B.A. (Hons.) History in Mata Sundri College for Women, which was her 57th preference. It is stated that the Appellant herein did not `freeze' her seat and opted for `upgradation' in the next round. It is stated that in CSAS Round II, she did not get any upgrade and therefore, the Appellant herein was entitled to upgradation in CSAS Round III. It is stated that the third round of allocation concluded on 13.11.2022 and the Appellant herein was upgraded to B.A. (Hons.) Political Science in Mata Sundri College for Women, which was her 56th preference. It is stated that the Appellant herein `accepted' the upgraded seat, but did not exercise the option of `freeze' which would have meant that the candidate had accepted the allocated college and such candidate would not be allowed to participate in the upgradation process again.

3. It is stated that the `Vacant Seat Matrix - Spot Round I' uploaded on the University's website indicates that the vacant seats are available in higher order of preferences in comparison to one presently allotted to the Appellant herein. It is stated that the Appellant herein was not permitted to take part in the Spot Round of counseling. Challenging the admission process and the decision of the University in not permitting the Appellant herein to participate in the Spot Round Counseling, the Appellant herein approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition, being W.P.(C) No. 16167/2022, with the following prayers:

"a) A Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the case and peruse the same;

b) A Writ of Certiorari quashing the decision /action of the Respondents in not allowing the Petitioner and similar situated candidates to participate in the spot round counselling, being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, unfair, unwarranted and in violation of the principles of equity, justice and good conscience and Article 14, 21, and 41 of the Constitution of India and consequently quashing para 3 of chapter 12 in the brochure of the common seat allocation system - 2022 (Annexure P-1);

c) A writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents to treat the Petitioner as eligible for participation in the spot round of allocation one and other further rounds of spot counselling, if held thereafter, and make available the option for the same on the dashboard of the petitioner, for that purpose.

d) A Writ of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to pay the costs of this petition to the Petitioner;

e