Prateek Rohilla vs Indian Institute Of Technology, ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 2087 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C) 1744/2012

                                        Decided on: 27th March, 2012

IN THE MATTER OF:
PRATEEK ROHILLA                                      ..... Petitioner
                        Through:    Mr. Sunil Kumar Bharti, Adv.
                                    with Ms. Kumkum Bhatt, Adv.
                  versus


INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, DELHI & ORS.
                                             ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Arjun Mitra, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

: HIMA KOHLI, J (Oral)

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia

for directions to the respondent No.1/IIT-Delhi to permit him to

appear in the competitive examination, i.e., JEE-2012 and to issue

him an admit card for the said purpose. The petitioner also seeks

quashing of the letter dated 13.03.2012 issued by respondent No.1

in reply to an application submitted by him for appearing in the IIT-

JEE, 2012.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as set out in the writ

petition are that in May, 2011, the petitioner had passed the

intermediate examination from the CBSE Board. On 02.11.2011,

the petitioner had applied for IIT JEE-2011 in the reserved category

(SC). On 10.04.2011, the petitioner had appeared in JEE-2011

examination. On 25.05.2011, he was informed that he had

qualified the JEE-2011 examination. On 21.06.2011, respondent

No.1 declared the results of the counselling held by them. In terms

of the counselling, the petitioner was allotted Engineering Design

(Automotive Engineering) Five Year M-Tech Dual Degree Course at

IIT-Madras. On 22.06.2011, the petitioner deposited a sum of

`20,000/- towards non-refundable registration fee by making an

online payment. As per the seat allotment letter dated 10.07.2011

addressed by the Organizing Chairman, JEE-2011 to the petitioner,

he was offered admission to the first year of the aforesaid course

under the SC category for the academic year, 2011-12 and was

called upon to report at IIT-Madras on 26.07.2011, failing which it

was informed that the offer of admission would be cancelled. It is

the case of the petitioner that due to some personal reasons, he

could not report at IIT-Madras for registration on the assigned date

and as a result, could not take advantage of the seat allotted to him

in the subject course for the academic year 2011-12. On

29.11.2011, he received a refund for an amount `19,000/- from the

respondent No.3/IIT (Madras), towards the fee deposited by him in

June 2011.

3. On 06.08.2011, the petitioner addressed a query via email to

IIT-Gauhati regarding his eligibility for sitting in the IIT JEE-2012.

On 12.11.2011, the petitioner applied for JEE-2012 in the General

category. On 17.03.2012, the petitioner received a letter dated

13.03.2012 from the respondent No.1/IIT (Delhi) informing him

that he had attempted JEE-2011 successfully and had got an

admission offer, which was accepted by him by depositing the

admission fee and therefore, he was ineligible to write IIT-JEE 2012.

In view of the above, he was informed that as per Clause 3.5 of the

Information Brochure of IIT JEE-2012, which lays down the

eligibility criterian for appearing in IIT JEE-2012, and stipulates that

"Candidates who have taken admission (irrespective of whether or

not they continued in any of the programmes) or accepted the

admission by paying registration fee at any of the IITs, IT-BHU

Varanasi or ISM Dhanbad are not eligible to appear in IIT JEE-

2012", his application for IIT JEE-2012 stood cancelled as he was

ineligible. Aggrieved by the aforesaid cancellation letter dated

17.03.2012, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Clause 3.5 of

the Information Brochure is applicable only to those candidates who

had taken admission in JEE-2011 batch and cannot include

candidates like the petitioner as he had neither reported for joining,

nor deposited the admission fee. He states that the counselling fee

paid by the petitioner in JEE-2011 having been refunded by

respondent No.3/IIT (Madras), the petitioner cannot be barred from

appearing in IIT JEE-2012. It is further urged that no prejudice

would be caused to the respondents, if the petitioner is allowed to

appear in the competitive examination as he has neither caused any

financial loss to them, nor has he taken admission in respondent

No.3/IIT (Madras). It is lastly urged by learned counsel that the

mere act of depositing `20,000/- as registration fee does not

tantamount to admission in the Institute as payment of the said

amount was only a pre-condition imposed on the candidates to

appear in the second counselling session for upgradation to better

choices/courses.

5. Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the present

petition and submits that the same is misconceived. He states that

the petitioner has deliberately not placed on record the 'Counselling

Brochure - „A Guide to Candidates Qualified in JEE-2011‟, the terms

and conditions whereof clearly lay down the eligibility condition for

candidates desirous of appearing in the JEE-2012 or later. The

attention of this Court is particularly drawn to Clause 1.10 of the

Brochure, which deals with course allotment. The relevant extract

of the aforesaid clause is as below:-

"All candidates who accept the offer of admission by paying registration fee will become INELIGIBLE for appearing in JEE 2012 or later. Fees once paid will not be refunded. Candidates once admitted to a particular institute through JEE cannot be transferred to another participating institute."

The relevant extract of the aforesaid Brochure is handed over by

learned counsel for the respondents and taken on record.

6. Counsel for the respondents submits that the terms and

conditions stipulated in the Counselling Brochure is clearly

applicable to candidates like the petitioner, who have qualified in

JEE-2011. He states that as counselling is done online for all JEE-

2011 qualified candidates desirous of joining IITs, no candidate is

expected to appear in person for the counselling and therefore the

registration fee deposited by the candidate is not a precondition

imposed for appearance in the second counselling, as contended by

the other side.

7. The entire case set up by the petitioner is based on the terms

and conditions of the Counselling Brochure and the relevant clauses

thereof need to be examined carefully. As per Clause 1.3 of the

Brochure, the online counselling procedure prescribed by the

respondents comprises of the following four steps:-

(1) Registration on JEE Counselling Online portal (JCOP) website, (2) Payment of counselling fees, (3) Submission of photocopies of documents to the zonal IITs, and (4) Choice filling.

8. Clause 1.5 relates to online choice filling and prescribes that

after registration and payment of counselling fee, the candidate is

required to login to the JCOP using the User-ID, password and the

JEE-2011 registration number printed on the admit card. On this

webpage, the candidate is required to enter the choices of courses

in the order of preference. The candidates are also advised to fill in

a large number of choices of courses in decreasing order of

preference otherwise, the candidates may not get any course

allotment in case of a low AIR.

9. The Brochure clarifies that an applicant who has qualified in

JEE-2011 and permitted for online counselling, is not guaranteed

admission and also that there are two rounds of course allocation in

JEE-2011. At the end of the first round, a candidate is informed

about the course allotted to him. The allotment can change in the

second round to a choice better than one allotted in the first round

depending on the number of candidates declining the seats offered

to them in the first round of seat allotment.

10. Clause 1.6 of the Brochure lays down the manner of payment

of the counselling fee. It prescribes a non-refundable counselling

fee of `1,000/- to be paid by candidates and stipulates that the said

fee can be paid only after registration of the candidate. As per

Clause 1.10, after the first round of counselling of course allotment,

the candidates, who were allotted a course, were required to pay a

non-refundable registration fee of `40,000/- (`20,000/- for SC/ST

candidate) on or before 17:00 hrs. of July 1, 2011 so as to accept

the offer of admission. The Brochure prescribes that the aforesaid

amount as deposited would be adjusted towards the fee to be paid

at the time of admission. Further, candidates are warned that those,

who do not pay the registration fee within the stipulated period

would not be considered for second allotment and would also lose

the seat allotted in the first allotment. For candidates, who pay the

registration fee within the stipulated time, the course allotted in the

first round is described as „provisional‟ and it is further clarified that

by paying the registration fee, the candidate accepts admission to

any of the courses that are equal or higher in preference than the

one allotted in the first round as per his/her choice list.

11. The cut-off date for second and final allotment of course was

fixed as 06.07.2011 and it was clarified that after the second

allotment, candidates were required to report to the Institute

wherein they had been allotted a seat on the reporting date, i.e., on

26.7.2011, failing which, the offer of admission would stand

cancelled. The last information given in Clause 1.10 is that all

candidates who accept the offer of admission by paying the

registration fee will become ineligible for appearing in JEE-2012 or

later and that fee once paid would not be refunded.

12. In view of the aforesaid clear and categorical terms and

conditions laid down in the Counselling Brochure for candidates

qualified in the JEE-2011, particularly, Clauses 1.4, 1.6 and 1.10, it

is not permissible for the petitioner to claim that the registration fee

deposited by him was nothing but a pre-condition to appear in the

second counselling session and for upgradation to better

choices/streams and that the same could not be treated as

admission. On the contrary, the registration fee deposited by the

candidate is a token of acceptance of the offer of admission made to

him/her. Since all the candidates were required to deposit the

registration fee online, the petitioner herein was not required to

deposit any amount upon reporting to respondent No.3/IIT-Madras

for admission in terms of the allotment letter dated 10.07.2011.

The said position is borne out from a perusal of Clause 1.10 itself.

13. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on

Annexure-II (page 22), which is a copy of the fee schedule dated

29.06.2011, to refute the aforesaid submission and claim that the

petitioner was required to pay different items of fees and deposits,

is misplaced for the reason that a bare perusal of the aforesaid

document reveals that registration fee does not form a part of the

aforesaid list. Rather, the said list enumerates the fees required to

be paid by the candidates upon reporting for joining the course and

the same is described under different heads including Admission

Fee, Grade Card/Thesis Fee, Medical Exam fee, Modernization fee,

Tuition fee, Examination fee etc..

14. Further, simply because the Brochure stipulated that the fee

once paid would not be refunded and the petitioner has still

received a refund of `19,000/- from the respondent while a non-

refundable fee of `1,000/- has been deducted, in terms of Clause

1.6 of the Brochure cannot be held against the respondent and it

does not mean that the petitioner can wriggle out of the conditions

prescribed in Clause 1.10. The very fact that a sum of `1,000/- was

required to be paid by candidates as counselling fee also demolishes

the claim of the petitioner that an additional amount was required

to be paid by him in the second counselling, and therefore it could

not be assumed that he had taken admission in JEE-2011. Any such

deduction drawn by the petitioner runs contrary to the terms and

conditions prescribed in Clause 1.6 and 1.10.

15. The Court also finds merit in the submission made by learned

counsel for the respondents that the aforesaid eligibility criteria has

been stipulated by the respondents to ensure that the same acts as

a deterrent for candidates, who having once qualified in JEE-2011,

seek to withdraw from the seat allocated to them, as any such

attempt on their part results in an immense financial strain upon

the Institute, which would have to keep a seat vacant not just in

the first year but right through the course that may extend upto 5

years as in the present case. That apart, the course in question is

extremely prestigious and every seat is precious and cannot be

permitted to be wasted in such a manner.

16. It is also relevant to note that in the present proceedings, the

petitioner has not assailed the terms and conditions of the

Counselling Brochure. Having failed to do so, he cannot be

permitted to question the same, by trying to give it an

interpretation which runs contrary to the clear terminology used in

the relevant clauses. The Court is also not oblivious to the fact that

the IIT JEE 2012 is to be held on 8.4.2012 for which the Application

Forms of the candidates were required to reach the Zonal IIT as

long back as on 15.12.2011. It is therefore not acceptable for the

petitioner to approach the Court just about a week before the dated

fixed for the examination, when even as per his own case, he had

submitted his application form on 12.11.2011 after reading the

eligibility conditions laid down in the Brochure. Moreover, no

explanation, much less a plausible explanation has been offered by

the petitioner for failing to report to IIT(Madras) on 26.7.2011, in

terms of the seat allotment letter issued to him on 10.07.2011.

17. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Court declines to exercise its

powers of judicial review in favour of the petitioner. The petition is

accordingly dismissed in limine.

(HIMA KOHLI) Judge MARCH 27, 2012 'anb'