Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 20.07.2026
ADITYA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY THROUGH ITS FOUNDER-CUM-CHAIRMAN DEVENDRA GUPTA.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, Ms. Deeksha Mehrotra, Advs.
Through: Mr. Dhruv Rohatgi, Panel Counsel with Ms. Chandrika Sachdeva, Mr. Dhruv Kumar, Advs. for GNCTD
Mr. B.S.Rawat CI DTTE
JUDGMENT
1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers: - “a) issue an appropriate writ, direction or order in the certiorari quashing the requirement as laid down in Clause 9 in the Information Bulletin of Respondent, Annexure P-1, which restricts admission to Full Time Diploma Courses on SRIVASTAVA 10:16 the basis of Common Entrance Test for the academic session 2026-27 being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; b) issue an appropriate writ, direction or Order 'in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent to permit the petitioner to admit students for the Four Full Time Diploma Courses, namely Diploma Courses in Electronics and Communication. Engineering; Computer Engineering; Medical Lab Technology and I.T. Enabled Services & Management with 40 intake capacity for the academic session 2026-27 on the basis of the marks obtained by them in Class 10th Examination and the students who have registered themselves with Delhi Skilled and Entrepreneurship University for the academic session 2026- 27;…”
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner institute is being run by Dr. R.N. Gupta Technical Education Society and has been imparting technical education in Pharmacy since 1995-96 with prior approval of All India Council for Technical Education (“AICTE”). The petitioner is also affiliated with the respondent Board of Technical Education (“BTE”).
3. In 2019, the Government of NCT of Delhi enacted the Delhi Skilled Entrepreneurship University Act, 2019 (“DSEU”). After the enactment of DSEU, all Government run Polytechnic Institutes became a part of DSEU and the names of the institutes were also changed. The eligibility criteria and the admission process were as per 10:16 the norms of the DSEU.
4. The DSEU conducted Common Entrance Test (“CET”) for admission in diploma for all Diploma level admissions in Government aided and private institutions.
5. The petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) NO. 13677/2021, seeking admission of students who could not take the Common Entrance Test wherein the Court disposed of the petition by holding that CET was in existence since long and the Court would be slow in interfering unless arbitrariness or perversity was established. In the year 2023, the petitioner’s name was included in the Information Bulletin issued by Board of Technical Education. However, the petitioner was placed under the No Admission category. The petitioner filed a W.P. (C) No. 10009/2023 assailing the same. The petitioner was granted interim relief. The said petition is still pending. For the year 2026-27 the petitioner was issued extension of approval by AICTE and the registration commenced on 04.05.2026.
6. The petitioner is now aggrieved by Clause No. 9 of the Information Bulletin of respondent, which restricts the admission to Full-time Diploma Courses on the basis of CET examination for academic session 2026-2027.
7. Mr. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the Information Bulletin under DSEU and further draws my attention to the eligibility criteria for the year 2025-26 which reads as under: 10:16 10:16 10:16
8. He again draws my attention to the 2026-27 Information Bulletin, which again describes the same qualification, which reads as under: 10:16
9. He further has drawn my attention to the eligibility criteria applicable to the petitioner, i.e. a privately run institution, wherein the Clause No. 9 states that CET is compulsory. The same reads as under: (pdf
98) 10:16
10. Mr. Rohatgi, learned standing counsel, draws my attention to the Counter Affidavit of the respondent and more particularly, paragraph Nos. 4, 5 6 and 7 which reads as under:
11. He states that the institutions run under the DSEU Act are not required to conduct a CET. However, it is compulsorily required under the BTE category to hold CET.
12. I am unable to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent as the private and government run institutions are providing the same diploma and are imparting the same education and there is no reason as to why the government aided institutions can do away without holding CET but the additional eligibility condition of holding a CET has been placed on the likes of petitioner institutions i.e. a private institution under BTE.
13. It is not the petitioner who had an option to opt for an affiliation under the DSEU or the BTE and it was done by the Government of NCT on its own. Furthermore, it is a settled principle laid down in West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75 that the classification are to be in consonance with Article 14 i.e. it must be founded upon intelligible differentia and should have rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
14. In S. Seshachalam v. Bar Council of T.N., (2014) 16 SCC 72 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
22. While Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification of persons, objects and transactions by the legislature for the purpose of achieving specific ends. But classification must not be “arbitrary, artificial or evasive”. It must always rest upon some real and substantial distinction bearing a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. Classification to be reasonable must fulfil the following two conditions: firstly, the classification must be 10:16 founded on the intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group. Secondly, the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are two distinct things. What is necessary is that there must be nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act. It is only when there is no reasonable basis for a classification that legislation making such classification may be declared discriminatory.”
15. In the present factual matrix, I am of the view that there exists no intelligible differentia to subject the institutes affiliated with DSEU and BTE to different assessment mechanism. This given bifurcation is an administrative/ executive decision of the respondent to merge certain government institutions into DSEU while the remaining institutions inclusive of private institutions such as that of the petitioner’s to be continued under the BTE by default and not by choice.
16. The substance of classification in this present case clearly violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner and the similarly situated institutions are performing similar functions as those which are under DSEU. There are two different parallel mechanisms for admission being the CET on one hand and Class Xth marks without CET on the other. The two different parallel mechanisms for institutions offering same diploma course have no 10:16 rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, which is granting admissions to competent and eligible students.
17. As per paragraph No. 7 of the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondent relied on Section 13 of the Delhi Diploma Level Technical Education Institutions Act, 2007 (“2007 Act”). The Section 13 of the 2007 Act has been made selectively applicable to the institutions under BTE and the institutions under DSEU have been kept out of its purview. This selective application, in my view is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as notwithstanding this provision being in place, the respondent has explicitly exempted institutions under the DSEU from the CET requirement. No reasons have been ascribed for the same.
18. This classification is ex-facie arbitrary as the students who seek admission in private institutes are put to disadvantageous position in comparison to DSEU because of the mandatory criteria of CET is being applicable only to institutes under BTE. The respondent has created an arbitrary classification and no intelligible differentia has been made out.
19. For the said reasons, the Clause No. 9 of the Information Bulletin issued by the respondent is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is hereby, set aside.
20. For the academic year 2026-27, the CET had already been conducted, and candidates have been allotted petitioner institute, the same is not to be interfered with, for the current academic year. However, in case there are any seats vacant (including management quota), the petitioner shall be entitled to admit students based on Class Xth 10:16 results.
21. The petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.