Vishal vs Joint Seat Allocation Authority & ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 4186 Del

#92

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Judgment delivered on: 23.07.2018

W.P.(C) 7297/2018
VISHAL                                                        .... Petitioner


                     versus
JOINT SEAT ALLOCATION AUTHORITY & ORS.                        .. Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr.Kapil Sankhla, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Arjun Mitra, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

                                 JUDGMENT

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, prays as follows:-

"a)Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, directing the Respondent No. 1 allocate a seat to the petitioner on his merits; and/or

b)Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, further directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to appear/sit for the subsequent rounds of counseling;

c)Issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ further directing the Respondents to reserve a

seat/admission for the Petitioner in the institute and stream that the petitioner deserved on the basis of merit;

d)Pass an ad-interim stay in favour of the Petitioners thereby directing the Respondent to stay the process of Counseling."

2. The facts as are necessary for the adjudication of the present

proceedings are briefly adumbrated as follows:-

a) The petitioner passed 12th Standard through Central Board of

Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as 'CBSE'), in the Non-

Medical stream and secured 93% marks. The petitioner is stated to have

filled the requisite forms for JEE (Main) examination and received his admit

card from the respondent No. 1, in this behalf.

b) Subsequent upon qualifying the JEE (Main) 2018 examination

successfully, the petitioner filled the application form for JEE (Advanced)

2018 examination, to be held on 20th May, 2018.

c) Upon declaration of the results of the JEE (Advanced) 2018

examination on 10th June, 2018, the petitioner was informed that he had

cleared the examination and had further secured 903rd rank in the SC

category.

d) The petitioner is stated to have duly filled his preferences and choice

of institutes and courses offered by the institutes, in terms of the guidelines

and schedule, published by the respondent No. 1.

e) In terms of the prescribed schedule, the petitioner participated online

in the mock trials and rounds of counseling, conducted by the respondent

No. 1.

f) In terms of the result of the Mock Allotment Round 1, the petitioner

was allotted IIT BHU, Mechanical Engineering (5 yrs.) and IIT Roorkee,

Chemical Engineering, in the Mock Allotment Round II.

g) It is an admitted position that, neither did the petitioner deposit the

seat acceptance fee in the amount of Rs.15,000/- for candidates belonging to

the SC category, nor did he participate in the first round of counseling of seat

allocation and admission conducted between 28th June, 2018 to 2nd July,

2018.

3. It is, however, the petitioner's case that, he was unable to participate

in the first round of counseling at the designated Centre, owing to the

circumstance that, he was suffering from diarrhea, gastroenteritis and

pyrexia and was advised strict bed rest for a week. It is observed in this

regard that, no intimation in relation to his inability to appear at the

designated Centre for the first round of counseling was ever sent to the

official respondent.

4. It is the petitioner's case that he tried to appear in the second round of

counseling conducted on 3rd July, 2018, at the IIT Delhi, but was denied

participation. It is further the petitioner's assertion that he made several

phone calls and visited the officials of IIT Delhi, but to no avail.

5. Eventually, the petitioner addressed a communication dated 4th July,

2018, to the Chairman (JoSAA), which he admittedly dispatched on 9th July,

2018, but to no avail.

6. Predicated on the above facts and circumstance, Mr. Kapil Sankhla,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would forcefully urge

that, admissions to prestigious courses must be based on merit alone and

therefore, regardless of his inability to participate in the counseling, as

predicated; in view of the circumstance alone that he has secured 903rd rank

in the SC category, the petitioner should be granted admission to IIT

Roorkee.

7. Mr. Sankhla, learned counsel for the petitioner would canvass the

following decisions in support of his submission:

i) Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE and Others, (2005) 9 SCC 779;

ii) Ashu Tosh Kumar Malick vs. Union of India and Others; 2015

SCC Online HP 1187;

iii) Asha vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences and Others, (2012) 7 SCC 389: 2012 SCC OnLine SC 509.

8. On the contrary, Mr. Arjun Mitra, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the official respondents, would invite the Court's attention to the Business

Rules for Joint Seat Allocation for the Academic Programs offered by, inter

alia, the IITs to urge that, a candidate who does not remit the seat acceptance

fee, in terms thereof, and does not report at the reporting centre for

counseling at the designated time, is considered to have rejected their offer

for seat allotment. In other words, if a candidate, pursuant to a provisional

offer of seat allotment, fails to deposit Rs.15,000/-, in the case of SC

category or does not produce the relevant documents for verification during

the stipulated period, his claim for admission stands extinguished.

9. It is further urged that, a candidate who has rejected an allocated seat

by failing to deposit the requisite fee and report in person for seat acceptance

is not permitted to participate any more in Joint Seat Allocation for the

relevant academic year.

10. The above submissions are predicted on the relevant rules, which are

extracted hereinbelow for the sake of felicity:

XVII PROVISIONAL OFFER OF SEAT AND ITS CONFIRMATION

"42. A candidate who has been allocated a seat is allowed to download the "Provisional Seat Allocation Letter" and an e-challan for remittance of seat acceptance fee.

43. Admission fee varies across the Institutes/category of candidates. Hence, at the time of seat acceptance, candidates have to remit only the seat acceptance fee. The seat acceptance fee will be adjusted against the admission fee by the admitting institute.

[ Seat Acceptance Fee:

Rs. 15,000 for candidates with the category tag SC, ST, GEN-PwD, OBC-NCL-PwD, SC-PwD or ST-PwD. For all other candidates Rs.35,000.

44. Candidates should (i) remit seat acceptance fee using the e-challan or using SBI Net Banking and (ii) report at a Reporting Center for document verification before the last date/time specified [see Annexure 3 for the timeline]. Failure to report in person for seat acceptance will be considered as if the candidate has rejected the offer.

Seat will be confirmed by the Reporting Centre after verification of the original documents and ensuring that the candidates meets all the eligibility norms [see Annexures 7 to 9].

Seat will be cancelled if, at any time, any of the documents/certificates is found to be invalid/fraudulent and/or the candidate does not meet all the eligibility norms.

45. Option to reject (or not accept) the allocated seat:

Candidates who want to reject the allocated seat can do so as follows:

(i) By NOT remitting the seat acceptance fee [and hence, not report at the reporting center]

(ii)If the seat acceptance fee has already been remitted, by not reporting at the Reporting Center. Seat acceptance fee will be refunded to such candidates.

46. Candidates who reject allocated seat cannot participate any more in Joint Seat Allocation for the ensuing academic year 2018-19."

(emphasis supplied)

11. There can be no quarrel with the submission that, admission to an

educational institution must be granted on merit alone. To disentitle a

meritorious student based on a formalistic and actualistic approach is unjust

and subversive for the purpose of the exercise. Be that as it may, it is equally

well settled that, the procedure prescribed for regulating the grant of

admissions to educational institutions cannot be emasculated or interfered

with, by the issuance of a writ of mandamus, unless the same has prejudiced

a student for no fault on his/her part.

12. In the present case, it is observed that, not only is the counseling for

the offered courses long since over, but so are admissions granted pursuant

thereto. In that sense, the present proceedings have been rendered

infructuous at the time of its institution, by events that have transpired

strictly in consonance with the academic calendar published by the official

respondents.

13. Furthermore, it is not the petitioner's case that in terms of the

prescribed Rule, he had deposited the seat acceptance fee of Rs.15,000/- with

the respondent No. 1, as required. It is further not the case of the petitioner

that, when he presented himself for counseling for the provisionally allotted

seat, he was denied participation. It was the petitioner's case that he was

prevented by circumstances beyond his control from participating in the

counseling conducted between 28th June, 2018 to 2nd July, 2018, because he

was suffering from diarrhea, gastroenteritis and pyrexia and was advised

strict bed rest. However, this Court does not find any substance in the

justification provided by the petitioner for his non-participation,

predominantly because, the latter relies on medical certificates issued by two

different medical hospitals in Faridabad and Rohtak, respectively, situated

approximately 60 kilometers apart. Particularly when, at the time of his

admission, he admittedly resided in District Mahendergarh.

14. Be that as it may, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present

case, and without undermining the academic credentials of the petitioner,

this Court is not persuaded to issue a mandamus to the official respondents

to create a supernumerary seat for the petitioner, for the same would have the

result of directing the official respondents to act contrary to its own

regulations.

15. Even otherwise, it would be a travesty of justice to the student, who

may have been allotted the seat, rejected by the petitioner, as a result of his

failure to comply with the essential pre-conditions for seat acceptance,

16. In view of the facts and circumstance of the present case, albeit, with a

heavy heart, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE) JULY 23, 2018 RS