Harshul Saini v. Indian Institute of Technology Delhi

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of cancellation of seat dated 27.09.2022, issued by respondent No.2 with a further prayer to direct respondents No.1 and 2 to allot seats in Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi in Energy Engineering (4 years Bachelor of Technology) stream for the academic year 2022-23.

2. The facts of the case are that on 07.08.2022, the petitioner qualified Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) conducted by respondent No.2 - Joint Seat Allocation Authority, 2022 (in short, JoSAA, 2022) under Other Backward Classes-Non Creamy Layer (in short, the OBC-NCL) category. On 28.08.2022, the petitioner thereafter appeared in JEE advanced examination conducted by respondent No.2 - 3 under the same category. On 17.09.2022, the result of advance JEE was declared. The petitioner secured 1764 rank in the OBC-NCL category. On 24.09.2022, during the counselling process, he was allotted a seat for Energy Engineering (4 years Bachelor of Technology) under the OBC-NCL category. The petitioner was to submit all his documents including payment of fees etc. before 27.09.2022, up to 5 pm. On 27.09.2022, the petitioner submitted provisional certificates of the OBC-NCL alongwith other relevant documents. On 28.09.2022, he also submitted the final certificate issued by the State of Rajasthan in the Central Government format. However, on 27.09.2022, the seat allotted to the petitioner was cancelled for the reason that he could not submit the valid certificate within the time stipulated in the brochure.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the entire approach of respondent No.2 is erroneous and the same is manifestly arbitrary. According to him, the petitioner has not committed any wrong and it is only on account of the faulty and cumbersome process of respondent No.4 i.e., State of Rajasthan that there was some delay in the issuance of the certificate which, however, was timely uploaded by the petitioner and, therefore, his candidature should not have been rejected arbitrarily on the mechanical and frivolous grounds. He states that the petitioner had a valid certificate. Since the same had expired on 07.12.2020, therefore, he acquired a fresh certificate. Before the cut-off date, he applied for an OBC certificate with the respective State Government and after issuance of the provisional certificate, the same was uploaded timely i.e., before 5 pm on 27.09.2022. Even the final certificate was also issued by the said authority on 28.09.2022. According to him, on 27.09.2022 itself, at 05:04 pm, the respondent No.2 sent the text - 4 message to the petitioner accepting his newly uploaded document to be in order and therefore, the respondent No.2 at a later stage cannot take a different stand on the ground that on 27.09.2022, there was some anomaly in the uploading of the certificate by the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel placed reliance on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sidhant Batra v. Director Indian Institute of Technology, IIT Bombay & Ors.[1] Prince Jaibir Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors.2, Dolly Chandra Vs. Chairman JEE & Ors.[3] Vinod Kumar v. University of Delhi and Ors.[4] Jasmeen Kaur v. Union of India and Ors.[5] and Nishant v. Union of India and Ors[6].

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 opposed the submissions and he stated that since the petitioner did not upload the valid OBC-NCL certificate on the website within the stipulated time, therefore, his seat was rightly cancelled and he was rightly considered in the subsequent round of seat allocation to be in the general category. He submitted that the seats in the IITs and the NIT plus system (comprising of National Institutes of Technology, Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Indian Institute of Information Technology and other government-funded technical institutes) are offered jointly through a common process conducted by respondent No.2 - JoSAA. The entire examination and allocation of seats were governed by JoSAA Business Rules which were published on 24.08.2022. According to him, the petitioner after the allocation of the seat uploaded certain documents on 21.09.2022 without uploading the scanned copy of the OBC-NCL certificate Civil Appeal of 4029/2020 dated 06.01.2021 Civil Appeal No. 6983/2021 dated 22.11.2021

- 5 issued on or after 01.04.2022. He uploaded a provisional certificate of the OBC-NCL on 27.09.2022 which was not found to be in the Central List format. Accordingly, a query was raised by the reporting officer. Since the petitioner failed to upload the required document before the last date in time, the petitioner was treated as a general category candidate. He stated that the requirement of submission of the OBC-NCL certificate issued on or after 01.04.2022 was within the public domain in the information brochure, JEE (advanced) 2022 which was first published on the official website on 24.02.2022. Clause 15 of the said brochure clearly stipulates that candidates under the OBC-NCL category are required to submit the requisite certificate which has been issued on or after 01.04.2022 and if the said certificate is not available, to upload a declaration in lieu thereof, to that effect. He stated that the petitioner has neither given any declaration nor has submitted any certificate on the date of filing of the application or on the last date, therefore, no fault can be attributed to the decision taken by the respondents. According to him, there were 3916 candidates who got admission to various IITs in the OBC- NCL category. Out of the aforesaid seats, 434 OBC-NCL seats including that of the petitioner were rolled back to the general category due to non-submission of the certificate. There were around 242 candidates who also suffered the same result on account of the non-submission of the general EWS certificate. It is thus submitted that all candidates have been treated similarly and no exception can be carved out for one candidate. He has placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Yoshika Verma v. Union of India[7]. According to him, against the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the

6. I have heard Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh, Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaturwedi and Mr. Amit Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arjun Mitra, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Mr. Jivesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Senior Panel Counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the record.

7. As per JoSAA Business Rules, the candidates were required to upload the required document in the prescribed format as per Annexure-3 of the said Business Rules. Schedule of the events of JoSAA, 2022 (online reporting) stipulates that seat allocation (round one) was to take place on 23.09.2022 by 10:00 IST. Online reporting, fee payment/document upload/response by the candidate to query (if required) (round one) was to take place between 23.09.2022 at 17:00 IST to 26.09.2022 by 17:00 IST. This further requires that the last date to respond to the query (round one) was 27.09.2022 by 17:00 IST. Annexure R3-2 of the counter-affidavit of respondent No.2 explains the online correspondence between the petitioner and respondent No.2. The same reads as under:-

8. It is thus seen that 27.09.2022 was the last date to respond to the query and according to the petitioner, he uploaded the provisional certificate by 16:30 IST on that date i.e. before the time would expire. Thus the fundamental issue requiring the consideration of this court is - 7 whether the uploading of provisional certificate before 17:00 IST is sufficient compliance under the scheme of examination or not.

9. The certificate, which the petitioner had uploaded, has been filed by him as Annexure-13. The same is reproduced as under:

10. The last line of the certificate clearly shows that the certificate was provisional in nature. It is only the final certificate that should be considered as a validly issued certificate.

11. Firstly, in accordance with Clause 15 of Information Brochure JEE (advance) 2022, the petitioner was required to submit the certificate in accordance with the latest guidelines of the Government of India relating to the OBC-NCL issued on or after 01.04.2022 at the time of online registration. In the absence of the certificate, the candidates were required to upload a declaration in lieu of the OBC- - 8 - NCL certificate to that effect. It is thus seen that the petitioner and all aspirants were well aware of the requirement of the OBC-NCL certificate. Secondly, Annexure 2 of the Information Bulletin (page-

94) prescribes formats of certificates. Page-97 is the form for the OBC-NCL candidates. The same reads as under:

12. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the certificate submitted by the petitioner before the cut-off date was not in the prescribed format. The certificate was provisional which contains specific stipulations that the same would be accepted when the final certificate is issued. If the action of respondent No.2 regarding non-accepting the provisional certificate is considered on - 9 the anvil of the aforesaid facts, it would appear that the same is not arbitrary or unreasonable. The argument made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that immediately on the next date i.e., on 28.09.2022, the final certificate was issued which was also submitted by him and the same ought to have been considered, does not have any substance for the simple reason that the same would amount to a violation of the applicable rules and the procedure. This relaxation could not have been given only to the petitioner when large number of candidates suffered cancellation on account of nonsubmission of certificate within time.

13. The rules and instructions governing admission to educational institutions have to be strictly and uniformly applied. Small variations may result in causing an immense disturbance in the entire process. The petitioner in the instant case may be correct in submitting that his OBC-NCL status has not been doubted at any stage. He had the provisional certificate and was further given the final certificate and it is nobody’s case that the petitioner does not belong to the OBC-NCL. But the fact remains that before the cut-off date the certificate in the prescribed format was not furnished to the examining body. Therefore, it is clear that compliance was not made with the applicable rules and regulations. The examining bodies now function on a minimum human intervention basis. They have to uniformly apply their rules. The computer does not know whether a particular candidate genuinely belongs to a particular caste unless a certificate in the prescribed format is uploaded. If any human intervention is allowed or the conditions are diluted, the entire sanctity and purity of the admission process gets vitiated. On the basis of sympathy or equity, the rule position cannot be compromised in matters of admission to educational institutions. Reliance can be placed on the - 10 decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur[8].