Divyanshu Meena vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 5888 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9121/2023

Divyanshu Meena S/o Hemchand Meena, Aged About 18 Years, R/o 49, Dilip Nagar, Bang-Ii, Lalsagar, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Ministry Of Education Erstwhile Ministry Of Human Resources Development (Mhrd), 127-C, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. Joint Seat Allocation Authority (Josaa), Through The Chairman, Iit Guwahati, Amingaon, North Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam

3. Organizing Institute, Indian Institute Of Technology Guwahati, Through The Director, Iit Guwahati, Amingaon, North Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, Guwahati 781 039.

4. Indian Institute Of Technology Delhi, Through The Director, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, 110016.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manvendra K.S.Bhati a/w Mr. Aditya Sharma.

For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Sanjeet Purohit.
                                Mr. Prakash Raika for
                                Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, Dy. S.G.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 10/08/2023 Pronounced on 16/08/2023

1. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Writ Petition may kindly be allowed:-

(2 of 10) [CW-9121/2023]

i. the petitioner may be given his initial chosen and allotted seat for pursing degree of Energy Engineering (4 years, Bachelor of Technology) at Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi under ST category for the current academic year. ii. the petitioner may be allowed to be part of subsequent counselling rounds (including submission of admission fees) in order to achieve higher preference as in accordance with the "Float" option he had selected.

iii. any appropriate order or direction, Respondents may be directed to provide vacant seat to the petitioner, which may be higher than the initially allocated seat, if it is found vacant at the end of Round 6.

iv. any appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favor of the Petitioner."

2. As per the pleaded facts, the petitioner is a student, who

attempted both Joint Entrance Exam-Mains (JEE-Mains)- for

admission in NITs, IIITs and other State/Central funded colleges,

as well as Joint Entrance Exam-Advanced (JEE-Advanced)- for

admission in IITs, whereupon he secured rank #838 in JEE-Mains

and #704 in JEE-Advanced, in ST category. Both JEE-Mains and

JEE-Advanced are conducted and governed by the Joint Seat

Allocation Authority (JOSAA), and in the present case, the

organizing Institution for the said examinations was the Indian

Institute of Technology, Guwahati. The seat allocation and

admission process of the above mentioned exams follow a strict

timeline and the entire process is done online, thus computer

operated.

2.1 Thereafter, the petitioner reserved his choice of seat for

pursuing Degree in Energy Engineering at Indian Institute of

(3 of 10) [CW-9121/2023]

Technology, Delhi and at the time of accepting the seat online out

of the available three options- 'Freeze', 'Float' or 'Slide', opted for

the option of "Float" (wherein candidate accepts the offered seat,

and indicates that if admission to an academic program of higher

preference in any Institute was offered in subsequent rounds of

seat allocation, the candidate would accept it, else continue with

the currently accepted programme).

2.2. Thereafter, the petitioner had to submit requisite documents

and pay fees for allocation of seat by July 4, 2023, 17:00 hrs and

the same was attempted to be done; however, due to some

technical glitch, the petitioner could not upload his mark-sheet of

Class XII and his medical certificate within the prescribed time

limit; since the documents were not uploaded, the petitioner

further could not move to payment window, and thus, failed to

pay the fees for the allocated seat.

2.2.1. As per the e-counselling service window, it was clear that

failure in payment of fess would result in cancellation of the

provisionally allotted seat, and consequently, the petitioner lost his

allocated seat, which further resulted in cancellation of his

candidature completely. Thus, aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner has preferred the present writ petition claiming the

afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

documents could not be uploaded on the system due to some

technical glitch, and thus, the petitioner was not permitted to

submit the requisite fees for further admission/counselling

process. In furtherance, the petitioner belonged to the ST

(4 of 10) [CW-9121/2023]

category and scored good marks in both the aforesaid

examinations; however, only due to a technical error, his

candidature was rejected, and thus, two years of his hard work

would go in vain.

3.1. It was also submitted that the difficulty with regard to

uploading of the documents arose at the time of final submission

of the form, and as far as payment of fees in offline mode is

concerned, the same would have been possible only if the

documents had been uploaded, as only then, the petitioner would

have been able to opt for either modes for submission of fees.

3.2. It was further submitted that an interim order was passed in

petitioner's favour by this Hon'ble Court, whereby the petitioner

was allowed to participate in the counselling process, and in

pursuance of the same, the petitioner was allotted seat for IIT-

Delhi; his document verification was done and a welcome mail was

received from IIT-Delhi by which the petitioner was allowed to sit

in the orientation programme; further, the petitioner was allocated

hostel and submitted fees for the same; even a letter was

received from the Organizing Chairperson, JEE (Advanced) 2023

informing with regard to the allotment of supernumerary seat

provisionally at IIT-Delhi. Thus, as per learned counsel, the

respondents themselves allocated the seat to the petitioner, even

when as per the order of the Hon'ble Court, only participation in

the counselling process was allowed.

3.3. It was also submitted that the petitioner received a mail from

the Organizing Chairperson JEE (Advanced) 2023 on 29.07.2023

informing him of his registration formalities being kept in

(5 of 10) [CW-9121/2023]

abeyance as per the instructions sent by JOSAA; however, for the

reasons mentioned in the above para, the petitioner had no need

whatsoever to participate in the last round of counselling of IIT or

for other rounds of conference of NIT+systems; also in pursuance

of the aforesaid mail, the IIT-Delhi de-allocated the hostel seat

and also refunded the fees paid by the petitioner.

3.4. Learned counsel, in order to fortify his submissions, placed

reliance on the following judgments:

(a) Prince Jaibir Singh v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 6983 of

2021, decided on 22.11.2021) by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

(b) Siddhant Batra v. The Director Indian Institute of

Technology, (IIT) Bombay & Ors. (Civil Appeal No(s). 4029/2020,

decided on 06.01.2021), by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

(c) Shubham Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. (c)

14355/2022, decided on 17.02.2023) by the Hon'ble High Court of

Delhi.

3.4.1. The relevant portion of the judgments rendered in the cases

of Shubham Chauhan (supra) and Prince Jaibir Singh

(supra), are reproduced as hereunder:

Shubham Chauhan (supra):

"39. Keeping in view the above judgments and the fact that the supernumerary seat against which the Petitioner was adjusted has been created by the Respondents on their own and there was no direction for same in the interim order dated 10.10.2022, the caveat in the interim order that no equities would flow in favour of the petitioner, will not come in the way of the petitioner's continuation against the said seat. In any case, the supernumerary seat so created cannot be utilized for any other candidate, even if the same

(6 of 10) [CW-9121/2023]

was not to be allotted to the Respondent. On the other hand, the Petitioner continues to pursue the course after having been admitted against the said meritorious student belonging to EWS quota who made it to the merit list and was provisionally allotted a seat in the first round of counselling."

Prince Jaibir Singh (supra):

"5. Having regard to the facts noted above, it would be a grave travesty of justice if a young Dalit student, who had to move this Court, is turned away without considering the difficulties he has encountered in acquiring the funds and to pay the fee for admission for the B.Tech Degree Course at IIT-Bombay and, thereafter, in ensuring that the payment is processed online. If the petitioner were not to be admitted during the current academic year, he will be ineligible after two consecutive attempts. Though technology is a great enabler, there is at the same time, a digital divide. Hence, we are of the view that this is a fit and proper case where the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution is warranted at the interim stage in the facts as they appear before the Court."

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents,

while opposing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner,

submitted that the JOSAA Business Rules, 2023 contained detailed

instructions in regard to the seat acceptance process as well as

consequences of failure to complete the process within the given

timeline, and that, the Schedule of Events of JOSAA clearly

informed the timeline involved for each activity, which were

applicable to all the candidates, without any exception, and thus,

(7 of 10) [CW-9121/2023]

failure to upload the requisite documents or non-payment of seat

acceptance fees within the stipulated time implied a rejection of

the offered seat and the petitioner was no longer able to

participate in the seat allocation process. In furtherance, the

payment of fee was not restricted only to online mode of payment

but also included the option to pay in cash at State Bank of India

using e-challan.

4.1. It was also submitted that it was certified by the National

Informatics Centre that the system worked as designed and no

glitch was reported; further, if an error had occurred, then it would

have affected not only the petitioner but the other candidates as

well, yet thousands of students have successfully completed the

seat allocation process and no complaint of any technical glitch

was reported.

4.2. It was further submitted that there was no attempt on the

part of petitioner to contact the concerned authorities within the

stipulated time (the process of seat acceptance spanned over a

period of 5 whole days) with regard to the aforesaid issue faced by

him, instead this remedy was availed by him around 8 pm on

04.07.2023, which is three hours after the timeline was already

over. In furtherance, the login trail of the petitioner clearly showed

that the petitioner logged into the portal on numerous occasions

without any difficulty and even downloaded the result several

times, but did not upload the documents or paid the fee.

4.3. Learned counsel, in support of such submissions, placed

reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of

Delhi in Shambhavi Kejriwal v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.

(8 of 10) [CW-9121/2023]

(c) 9380/2023 and CM Appl. 35702-35703/2023 decided on

21.07.2023), wherein the petitioner was not allowed to participate

in further round of counselling due to rejection of allocated seat

for non-payment of seat acceptance fees and the same was

upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave

to Appeal (c) No(s). 15829/2023 vide order dated 25.07.2023.

4.3.1. Learned counsel in order to fortify his submissions also

placed reliance on the following judgments:

(a) Maharishi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, (2010) 11

SCC 159

(b) Omansh Thankur v. Union of India & Ors., (W.P. (c)

8802/2023 and CM Appl. 33268/2023), decided on 11.07.2023 by

the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.

6. This Court observes that the petitioner appeared for both the

JEE-Mains and in the JEE-Advanced examinations and secured

rank of #838 and #704 respectively and thereafter reserved his

seat for pursuing the Degree in Energy Engineering at Indian

Institute of Technology, Delhi; however was unable to upload the

requisite documents and pay the fees to complete the seat

allocation process before the timeline for the same was over, due

to some technical glitch.

7. This Court observes that the petitioner is a meritorious

student and was eligible for reservation of a seat, during the seat

allocation process, and though the use of technology has made

the entire process of admission in colleges easier, thereby proving

(9 of 10) [CW-9121/2023]

it (technology) to be an enabler, in absence of human

intervention, however, at the same time, the concept of digital

division and the possibility of technical issues or glitches arising

during the same, cannot be completely ruled out.

7.1. A very exhaustive and non-flexible scrutiny has been made

on merit and eligibility of the petitioner (student) before making

final determination as to his entitlement for the academic seat in

course in question, to be pursued at an institution as precious as

the IIT-Delhi, and thus, such determination has been made upon

the touchstone of the toughest parameters.

7.2. It is writ large on the face of the record that the petitioner is

absolutely in merit and fully conforms to the eligibility criteria for

the Course in question. In the present case, once the basic firewall

of the eligibility and merit is overcome, then the Court ought to

keep into consideration the fact that the petitioner has approached

this Court well within time i.e. on the next day, when the cause of

action arose, whereupon an interim order was also passed by this

Hon'ble Court in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the prospective

indulgence of this Court will be meaningful. It is also to be kept

into consideration that the petitioner's academic year is valuable

and a large number of candidates having lesser merit than him,

will have the advantage pursuing the prestigious Course in

question, while depriving the petitioner, despite being meritorious

and eligible, of the same.

8. This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered in the case

of Prince Jaibir Singh (supra) rendered by the Hon'ble Apex

Court.

(10 of 10) [CW-9121/2023]

9. In the judgment rendered in the case of Shambhavi

Kejriwal (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi did not allow

petitioner to sit in further rounds of counseling for non-payment of

fees and the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the order of the Hon'ble

Delhi High Court; however the facts in the present case are

different, as the petitioner herein was conscious of the Rules and

tried to the best of his ability to upload the requisite documents

and for payment of fees.

10. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations as well as in view

of the aforementioned precedent laws, and looking into the factual

matrix of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that owing

to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it would not

be justified in the eye of law to deprive the petitioner of the grant

of seat, more particularly, being conscious of the fierce

competition in this examination; thus, the respondents are

directed to allow the petitioner to continue with the

supernumerary seat so created by the respondents and the

petitioner be granted admission in IIT-Delhi accordingly.

11. The present petition stands allowed accordingly. All pending

applications stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)