Madras High Court

Keaan Vinod Jain vs The Registrar on 1 July, 2025

                                                                                             WP No. 23448 of 2025


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 01-07-2025

                                                          CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

                                                WP No. 23448 of 2025
                1. Keaan Vinod Jain
                S/o Vinod Jain Occ: Student
                R/at 291/4 Ekbote Colony
                Ghorpade Peth, Shankar Sheth Road,
                Pune 411042

                                                                                        Petitioner(s)
                                                               Vs
                1. The Registrar
                Indian Institute Of Technology Madras
                (IITM) IIT Campus Sardar Patel Road
                Chennai 600036

                2.Dean (SEA Admissions)
                Indian Institute Of Technology Madras
                (IITM) Iit Campus Sardar Patel Road
                Chennai 600036

                                                                                        Respondent(s)
                PRAYER
                    Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
                                                                               st
                to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the 1 Respondent to consider the

                petitioner's representation dated 15.06.2025 and consequently direct the



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis               ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 03:30:44 pm )
                                                                                           WP No. 23448 of 2025


                Respondent to accept the candidature of the petitioner for admission in the

                Sports Excellence Admission (SEA) of the Respondent.


                                  For Petitioner(s):       M/s. Mr. K.P. Prabhuraj

                                  For Respondent(s):       Mr.Karthik Raja, S.C., For R1
                                                           and 2

                                                             ORDER

The instant writ petition has been filed with a prayer to extend the time

for applying under the Sports Excellence Admission [SEA].

2. Heard Mr.K.P.Prabhuraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.Karthik Raja, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner

is a meritorious student and was allotted seat in B.E., Biological Engineering in

IIT, Madras. However, he is aspiring for B.E., Computer Engineering. He has

also achieved many excellence in Sports Activities. Therefore, the petitioner

could very well entitled to apply in Sports Excellence Admission, whereas, he

inadvertently failed to apply the same within the due date, and the last date for

applying for the quota lapsed on 12.06.2025. It is his submission that his result

for allotting seat in B.E., Biological Engineering was declared on 14.06.2025.

Therefore, he was not in a position to apply under sports quota. Hence, prayed

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 03:30:44 pm )

to interfere with the Notification by extending the time limit for submitting the

application.

4. Per contra, the said submission was strongly objected by the learned

Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned Standing Counsel

would submit that the Rules provided under the prospectus has to be followed to

it's letter and spirit and there cannot be any concession to any of the candidates

and if the concession is granted to this candidate, it would open Pandora's box

and also affect the integrity of the admissions. It is his further submission that

while exercising the power of judicial review, this Court could not grant any

concession beyond the Rules provided under the Prospectus.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

6. The contention of the petitioner rests upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Asha Vs. PT.B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences and

others reported in (2012) 7 SCC 389, wherein the learned counsel relied upon

paragraph 28 to 30 and the same are extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:-

“28. In the present case, there is no dispute that the appellant was present at the place and on the date of the second counselling but the dispute relates to her absence at the particular time when her name was called out for the purpose of counselling. As far as this issue is concerned, we have already expressed the opinion that there is no substance in the defence taken by the respondents and the appellant should be entitled to the relief prayed for.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 03:30:44 pm )

29. However, the question that immediately follows is whether any mid-term admission can be granted after 30th September of the academic year concerned, that being the last date for admissions.

The respondents before us have argued with some vehemence that it will amount to a mid-term admission which is impermissible, will result in indiscipline and will cause prejudice to other candidates. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of this Court in Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh [(2002) 7 SCC 258], Neelu Arora v. Union of India [(2003) 3 SCC 366] , Aman Deep Jaswal v. State of Punjab [(2006) 9 SCC 597 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1893] , Medical Council of India v. Naina Verma [(2005) 12 SCC 626] and Mridul Dhar v. Union of India [(2005) 2 SCC 65].

30. There is no doubt that 30th September is the cut-off date. The authorities cannot grant admission beyond the cut-off date which is specifically postulated. But where no fault is attributable to a candidate and she is denied admission for arbitrary reasons, should the cut-off date be permitted to operate as a bar to admission to such students particularly when it would result in complete ruining of the professional career of a meritorious candidate, is the question we have to answer.”

7. In the above judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has extended time

only upon the singularly singular fact of the presence of the candidate in the

counselling hall, whereas the Authority did not notice him, which resulted in

non-allotment of seat. Only in such a peculiar circumstances, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has directed the Authority to admit the student.

8. But, in the case in hand, the learned Standing Counsel would invite the

attention of this Court about the print out of the Home page of the Joint Seat

Allocation Authority [JSAA], the application module wherein the tab for the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 03:30:44 pm )

Sports Excellence Admission is available on the home page of the website.

Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

petitioner has omitted to apply simultaneously under the Sports Excellence

Admission.

9. As far as, the extension of time, even in the judgment relied upon by

the learned counsel for the petitioner in Asha's case [cited supra], from

paragraphs 23 to 27, the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed as to why the time

should not be extended. For ready reference, the same are extracted hereunder:-

“23. Adherence to the schedule is the obligation of the authorities and the students both. The prescribed schedule is to be maintained stricto sensu by all the stakeholders because if one party adheres to the schedule and others do not or there is some kind of lack of communication or omission to make proper announcements and maintain proper records for such counselling, disastrous results can follow, of which the present case is an apt example.

24. The Court cannot ignore the fact that these admissions relate to professional courses and the entire life of a student depends upon his admission to a particular course. Every candidate of higher merit would always aspire admission to the course which is more promising. Undoubtedly, any candidate would prefer course of MBBS over BDS given the high competitiveness in the present times, where on a fraction of a mark, admission to the course could vary.

Higher the competition, greater is the duty on the part of the authorities concerned to act with utmost caution to ensure transparency and fairness. It is one of their primary obligations to see that a candidate of higher merit is not denied seat to the appropriate course and college, as per his preference. We are not oblivious of the fact that the process of admissions is a cumbersome

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 03:30:44 pm )

task for the authorities but that per se cannot be a ground for compromising merit. The authorities concerned are expected to perform certain functions, which must be performed in a fair and proper manner i.e. strictly in consonance with the relevant rules and regulations.

25. Strict adherence to the time schedule has again been a matter of controversy before the courts. The courts have consistently taken the view that the schedule is sacrosanct like the rule of merit and all the stakeholders including the authorities concerned should adhere to it and should in no circumstances permit its violation. This, in our opinion, gives rise to dual problem. Firstly, it jeopardises the interest and future of the students. Secondly, which is more serious, is that such action would be ex facie in violation of the orders of the court, and therefore, would invite wrath of the courts under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In this regard, we may appropriately refer to the judgments of this Court in Priya Gupta [(2012) 7 SCC 433] , State of Bihar v. Sanjay Kumar Sinha [(1990) 4 SCC 624] , Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh [(2002) 7 SCC 258] , GSF Medical and Paramedical Assn. v. Assn. of Self Financing Technical Institutes [(2003) 12 SCC 414] and Christian Medical College v. State of Punjab [(2010) 12 SCC 167]

26. The judgments of this Court constitute the law of the land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution and the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India are statutorily having the force of law and are binding on all the parties concerned. Various aspects of the admission process as of now are covered either by the respective notifications issued by the State Governments, prospectus issued by the colleges and, in any case, by the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India. There is no reason why every act of the authorities be not done as per the procedure prescribed under the Rules and why due records thereof be not maintained. This proposition of law or this issue is no more res integra and has been firmly stated by this Court in its various judgments which may usefully be referred at this stage. (Ref.: State of M.P. v. Gopal D.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 03:30:44 pm )

Tirthani [(2003) 7 SCC 83] , State of Punjab v. Dayanand Medical College & Hospital [(2001) 8 SCC 664 : AIR 2001 SC 3006] , Bharati Vidyapeeth v. State of Maharashtra [(2004) 11 SCC 755] , Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai v. State of Gujarat [(2011) 3 SCC 617] and Harish Verma v. Ajay Srivastava [(2003) 8 SCC 69 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 512] .)

27. In the prospectus issued by the respondents, Chapter 9 dealt with the method of selection and admission. Clause 3.1 stated that it was mandatory for the qualified candidates to appear before the Counselling Board in person. No relaxation was to be given to the candidates who were unable to appear before the Counselling Board on the fixed dates. Further, it was stated in the prospectus that at the time of the counselling, the candidates would be required to exercise their choice for the institution and the course. The allotment of the seats would be made according to the merit and preference exercised by the candidates at the time of counselling. During the subsequent counselling the course/institution would be allotted as per the merit of the candidates depending on the availability of seats. All these clauses are in accordance with the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India or the notifications issued by the State Government concerned. Relaxation of the Rule of Merit for reason of non-appearance is not permissible.”

10. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that any interference in the

time line fixed by JSAA would definitely cause great prejudice and as rightly

contended by the learned Standing Counsel, would open the Pandora's box.

Hence, this Court does now want to accede to the prayer sought for by the

petitioner, as this Court does not find any extraordinary merits to interfere.

11. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would invite the

attention of this Court about the request to the help desk for extension of time

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 03:30:44 pm )

vide his email dated 15.06.2025, wherein, he sought for an extension to apply

for the Sports Excellence Admission.

12. In such view of the matter, while dismissing the writ petition, this

Court directs IIT, who deals about the help desk to forward the petitioner's