Shubham Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors.

15. For ascertaining whether the petitioner‟s attempt to transfer the amount for deposit of „seat acceptance fee‟ was genuine or not, the Court vide order dated 16.11.2022 allowed the Petitioner to place on record necessary details regarding – (i) time of credit of deposits in the petitioner‟s father‟s bank account on 26th September 2022, to establish that funds were sufficient in the account to pay for the „seat acceptance fee‟, and (ii) reason(s) for declining petitioner‟s fund transfer requests.

16. In compliance of the order dated 16.11.2022, the father of the petitioner, Sh. Ramvir Singh Chauhan, filed an additional affidavit and brought on record the fact that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was deposited at 11.44 am on 26.09.2022 in his bank account maintained with ICICI Bank and funds were sufficient when the transaction of Rs. 35,000/- was attempted at 14.50 hours on 26.09.2022. It was also brought on record that the card was not active for online transactions at the time when the Petitioner attempted the transaction. As regard his bank account with Indian Bank, he stated that the balance in the account on 26.09.2022 at the close of business hours was Rs.41250.80 and the reason for the failure of the transaction was that the limit for transactions was Rs. 25,000/- only.

17. In the meanwhile, the Respondent No. 3 [JoSSA 2022], instead of allowing the Petitioner to join subsequent rounds of JoSAA 2022 Counselling in terms of the interim directions passed vide order dated 10.10.2022, created and allotted a supernumerary seat to the Petitioner in IIT(ISM), Dhanbad. This is borne out from paragraph 23 of the counter affidavit which reads as under:- “23. That the Petitioner has already been allotted a supernumerary seat in IIT (ISM) Dhanbad, in the Mathematics and Computing (5 Years Integrated Master of Technology) program in compliance of the interim orders passed by this Hon‟ble Court. However, the said interim order dated 10.10.2022 makes it clear that no equities would flow in favour of the Petitioner.”

18. Mr. Utkarsh Singh, the learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that it is only on account of technical reasons that the „seat acceptance fee‟ could not be deposited by the Petitioner within the given timeline. He submits that repeated attempts were made by the Petitioner with the debit cards of his father and that sufficient funds were also available in the account, therefore, default or lackadaisical approach cannot be attributed to the petitioner. He further contends that the Petitioner belongs to the economically weaker section of society and his father had with great difficulty arranged the funds for payment of the seat acceptance fee prior to the deadline. Furthermore, he submits that at the time when the transactions were attempted, the Petitioner and his father were not aware that the petitioner‟s father‟s ICICI Bank card was not active for online transactions. Similarly, it was also not within their knowledge that there was a transaction limit of Rs.25,000/- in respect of the petitioner‟s father‟s account maintained with Indian Bank, which was the reason for the failure of the transaction attempted through Indian Bank. Additionally, he contends that the Petitioner has already been allotted a supernumerary seat in IIT (ISM), Dhanbad, in the Mathematics and Computing (5 years Integrated Master of Technology) Programme pursuant to an interim order passed by this court on 10.10.2022 and the Petitioner continues to pursue the said course.

19. Per Contra, Mr. Arjun Mitra, learned counsel for the Respondent no.3, submits that there was no technical glitch or fault on the part of the Respondent no.3 in the transaction of fee deposit not going through. Inviting the attention of the court to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner‟s father, he submits that the inability to make the payment of the seat acceptance fee was admittedly, attributable entirely to the petitioner. Referring to Rule 1 of the Business Rules, he contends that the seat allocation process follows a strict timeline and it is not possible to entertain requests for an extension of time. He also refers to Rule 41 and Rule 55 under Section XVIII of the JoSAA Business Rules, 2022 to urge that non-payment of fee entails rejection of allocated seat and in such a situation the candidate is not permitted to participate in the seat allocation process in subsequent rounds. He contends that the Petitioner also had an option to deposit cash in an SBI Branch before the closure of the portal as provided in the Business Rules, but no explanation has been given by the Petitioner as to his inaction in not trying to make the payment by using the echallan facility for depositing cash in the SBI Branch. As regards the Petitioner having been allotted a supernumerary seat pursuant to an interim order of this court, he submits that the said interim order dated 10.10.2022 makes it clear that no equities would flow in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel also relies on the Supreme Court decision in Maharishi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159, the Delhi High Court decision in Pallavi Sharma vs. College of Vocational Studies & Anr., (2015) 221 DLT 738, as well as the judgment dated 12.11.2021 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Prince Jaibir Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 3772, to contend that the Rules of Business formulated by JoSAA are binding on the Petitioner and no direction can be given by the court to the authority to violate its own rules and regulations. He informs the Court that the said judgment of the Bombay High Court came to be challenged before the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.6983/2021, in which an interim order was passed by the Supreme Court and the candidate was permitted to pay the fee, which he could not deposit within the stipulated time, with a further direction for creation of a supernumerary seat in the facts of the said case. He, however, submits that while granting the aforesaid relief, jurisdiction has been exercised by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution and this court is not vested with such jurisdiction.

20. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material on record.

21. At the outset, it may be apt to reproduce the relevant part of Rule 1 of the Business Rules, which provides for strict adherence to the timeline and which reads as under: The business rules stated herein will be followed for allocating seats for the above referenced academic programs for the academic year 2022-23, through joint seat allocation for the IITs and NIT + System. There are various provisions contained in these Business Rules which may not be reversible. The candidates are strongly advised to exercise their options carefully and may seek guidance through the grievance redressal mechanism provided in these rules [See point 84 below]. The seat allocation process follows a strict time line. The entire process is on-line and computer operated. No exceptions are possible and therefore, candidates are strongly advised to thoroughly acquaint themselves with these Business Rules, be vigilant, keep their documents handy and make arrangements for making the requisite payments, well in advance. It will not be possible to entertain requests for extension of time for adhering to a time line or for completing any activity.

22. Rule 41 under Section XVIII of the Business Rules provides for the three steps to be followed by a candidate for confirming acceptance of a seat and the consequence of non-payment of the seat acceptance fee within the prescribed timeline. The relevant extract of Rule 41 reads as under: “XVIII PROVISIONAL OFFER OF SEAT AND ITS

41. It is the candidate‟s responsibility to login to the JoSAA portal and check if a seat is allocated in a given round of seat allocation. Schedule of JoSAA activities is available in Annexure 3 of this document. If the candidate is allocated a seat, following steps of “Online Reporting” are required to be carried out, in order to accept the allocated seat before the last date/time specified for the given round, i.e., the round in which seat is allocated. Please refer to Annexure 3 for the timeline. The allocated seat will then be either confirmed / cancelled on completion of document verification. A candidate who has been allocated a seat needs to download the “Initial Seat Allotment Intimation Slip” which has information regarding the Seat Allotment and steps to be followed for seat confirmation by the candidate. Step 1: Accept the Seat The candidate needs to accept the seat allocated and opt for any one of the options „Freeze‟, „Slide‟ or „Float‟ for the choice of academic program for subsequent round(s), if any, of joint seat(see section XX). Step 2: Upload the documents The candidate must upload all the required documents (as per Annexure 3) on the JoSAA portal. Step 3: Pay the Seat Acceptance Fee The candidate MUST pay the seat acceptance fee for continuing with the JoSAA process till the end to avail the seat in IITs or NIT+ system. The documents uploaded by the candidate cannot be verified unless the candidate pays the seat acceptance fee. Admission fee varies across the Institutes/category of candidates and is different from seat acceptance fee. At the time of seat acceptance, candidates have to remit the seat acceptance fee only in the round in which the seat is allotted for the first time. Non-payment of the fee is one of the ways to reject the offered/allocated seat and will be treated as a rejection. In such a situation, the candidate will no longer be able to participate in the seat allocation process in the subsequent rounds.{See point 44 and 45 below] Seat Acceptance Fee Rs. 15,000 for candidates with the category tag SC, ST, GEN- PwD, GEN-EWS-PwD, OBC-NCL-PwD, SC-PwD or STPwD and Rs. 35,000 for all other candidates (the fee includes Rs. 3,000 JoSAA processing charges). The seat acceptance fee excluding JoSAA processing charges will be adjusted against the admission fee. Candidates should remit seat acceptance fee using UPI/Net Banking / Debit card /Credit card or State Bank of India echallan. Step 4: Respond to queries (if any) At the time of document verification, if the document verification officer raises any query, the candidate must respond in online mode (through candidate portal) within the stipulated time. Failure to respond to the query(ies) may lead to cancellation of the allotted seat and the candidate may no longer be able to participate in the JoSAA 2022 process. It is the responsibility of the candidate to check the online portal at regular intervals of time and respond to queries (if any) without fail within the stipulated time. Candidates MUST complete all the above steps before their details are forwarded to the reporting authorities for verification and provisional allocation of the seat. Document verification is done ONLY for those candidates who have successfully paid the seat acceptance fee. Failure to complete all the steps of “Online Reporting” for seat acceptance will be considered as rejection of the offer and the candidate would have forfeited the eligibility for admissions to any of the institutes through JoSAA 2022 and will not be able to participate in the seat allocation process in the subsequent rounds, if any.

23. Rule 55 prescribes the mode of remittance of fee and provides that nonpayment of seat acceptance fee within the stipulated period will entail cancellation and such cancellation is not reversible. It further provides that no requests would be entertained, as the entire process is computerized. Rule 55 reads as under: “XXII REMITTANCE OF SEAT ACCEPTANCE FEE

55. For payment of seat acceptance fee, candidates should either use UPI or Net Banking or Debit card or Credit card facilities available on JoSAA portal or use e-challan of State Bank of India downloaded from the JoSAA portal. An e-challan is similar in purpose to a challan used in a bank to deposit money. It will have all the details filled in by the online portal and will have two identical parts (i.e., the challan will be in duplicate). One copy will be retained by the bank. Candidate retains another copy for candidate‟s own record. Using e-challan, candidates can physically pay the seat acceptance fee in any branch of State Bank of India. Candidates are strongly advised to make the payment on time, as the seat may get cancelled due to non-payment of seat acceptance fee within the stipulated time period. Such cancellation is not reversible and no requests would be entertained, as the entire process is computerized.

24. It is not in dispute that the timeline for making payment for the seat acceptance fee in the first round of seat allocation was from 23.09.2022 (10:00 hours) to 26.09.2022 (20:00 hours). Admittedly, the Petitioner failed to deposit the seat acceptance fee by the deadline. Albeit, the Petitioner made repeated attempts to deposit the seat acceptance fee, and the funds were also sufficient in the petitioner‟s father‟s bank account for the payment of said fee, the transaction did not go through for technical reasons as stated in the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner‟s father.

25. As noticed, the transaction from the petitioner‟s father‟s bank account maintained with ICICI Bank could not go through as the card was not active for online transactions. Similarly, the reason for the transaction being rejected by the Indian Bank was that the maximum limit for a transaction was only Rs.25,000/- whereas the transaction in question which was attempted by the Petitioner was for an amount of Rs.35,000/-.

26. Clearly, failure to deposit the seat acceptance fee before the deadline was on account of the reasons attributable to the petitioner. Payment failure was not attributable to the Respondent no.2 and was nor on account of any other technical glitch in the portal of the Respondent no.3. It stands established from the e-mail dated 11.10.2022 [Annexure R3-3] of the National Informatics Centre, written in response to the email of Respondent no. 3, informing that the system worked as designed and that no technical failure/glitch was reported. This position is also not controverted by the petitioner.

27. Undisputedly, the Petitioner is a deserving and meritorious student who made it to the merit list in the first round itself. It is equally true that the Petitioner belongs to the economically weaker section (EWS) and his father might have arranged the money for payment of the seat acceptance fee with great difficulty, but this court cannot be unmindful of the fact that the JoSAA Business Rules 2022 [Rule 1, 41 & 55] unambiguously provide for strict adherence to the timeline and that seat cancellation on account of non-payment of seat acceptance fee is irreversible. Obviously, it is for this reason that the Business Rules [Rule 1] also forewarns the candidates to keep their documents handy and make suitable arrangements for making the requisite payments, well in advance.

28. In case the online transaction for payment of the seat acceptance fee was repeatedly being rejected, the Petitioner also had the option to deposit the same through cash in any branch of State Bank of India, in terms of Rule 41 read with Rule 55 of the Business Rules, which option was not availed by the petitioner.

29. It is not the case of the Petitioner that the Business Rules have not been uniformly applied by Respondent no.3. On the contrary, the case of the Respondent no.3 is that the total of 46,319 candidates paid the seat acceptance fee in Round I, and 7702 candidates made the payment on September 26, 2022, itself.

30. This court is conscious of the law pronounced by the Supreme Court in Maharishi Dayanand University (Supra) wherein it was held that no mandamus can be issued directing educational institutions to act contrary to their own procedure. The relevant principle enunciated by the Supreme Court reads as under:-

36. In A. Sudha (supra), the college was itself at fault for admitting the appellant who was not eligible for admission to the first year MBBS course at Mysore University. The appellant was not at fault and she had continued with her studies by virtue of interim orders of the court. Albeit, the Supreme Court held the appellant to be ineligible, but following the decision in Rajendra Prasad Mathur (supra) directed that the appellant should be allowed to pursue the course. The relevant extract of the said decision reads as under:- “18. The facts of the instant case are, more or less, similar to the Rajendra Prasad Mathur case [1986 Supp SCC 740: AIR 1986 SC 1448:]. It has been already noticed that on the appellant's query, the Principal of the Institute by his letter dated 26-2-1986 informed her that she was eligible for admission in the First Year MBBS course. It was, inter alia, stated in the letter that the candidate should have obtained 50 per cent marks in the optional subjects in the B.Sc. examination. There is no dispute that the appellant had obtained 54 per cent marks in those subjects in the B.Sc. examination. The appellant was, therefore, quite innocent and she was quite justified in relying upon the information supplied to her by none else than the Principal of the Institute in the said letter in regard to the eligibility of the admission in the First Year MBBS course. In the circumstances, we do not think that we shall be justified in penalising the appellant by not allowing her to continue her studies in the MBBS course. Prima facie it was the fault of the Principal of the Institute but, in our view, the statement that was made by him in his said letter to the appellant as to the eligibility of the appellant for admission to the MBBS course, was on a bona fide interpretation of the regulations framed by the Mysore University for admission to MBBS course for the academic year 1985-86, which to some extent suffer from ambiguity. The regulations should have been more clear and specific. Be that as it may, following the decision of this Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur case [1986 Supp SCC 740: AIR 1986 SC 1448:] while we dismiss the appeal, we direct that the appellant shall be allowed to prosecute her studies in the MBBS course, and that her result for the First Year MBBS examination be declared within two weeks from date.”

37. In Ashok Chandra Singhvi (supra), the appellant, a diploma holder in Engineering, applied for admission to BE Degree course based on a resolution of the Syndicate of the University which was contrary to the University Statutes. The application was also made after the last date for admission to the general seats. On the basis of an order for admission issued by the authorities considering all the relevant facts, the appellant deposited the requisite fees and joined the classes. However, subsequently, an order was communicated to him directing that his admission was put in abeyance until further orders. The Supreme Court held that the appellant cannot be made to suffer by putting in abeyance or cancelling his admission after joining classes, for the mistake committed by the authorities themselves. The relevant extract reads as under:-

38. It is also apt to refer to the decision of a Division Bench of this court in Union of India and Anr. Vs. Samridhi Sushil Sharma, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1840 wherein creation of supernumerary seat was not disturbed on the ground that the seat could only be given to the candidate for whom it was created and to no one else and the seat so created will go waste if not allotted to such candidate. In that case, the Respondent (original writ petitioner) had laid claim to one of the two seats from the central pool allocated by the Union of India to the National Bravery Awardees for admission to the MBBS course for the academic session 2019–2020. The claim of the Respondent was rejected on the ground that he is not a recipient of either the National Child Award or the Pradhan Mantri Rashtriya Bal Puraskar and that the scheme did not include the awardee of the National Bravery Award which had been conferred upon the Respondent. While allowing the writ petition of the Respondent, the learned Single Judge returned a finding that the office memorandum dated 16.08.2019 issued by the Government of India allocates two seats for eligible “National Bravery Awardees” and no amendment has been brought about in the office memorandum dated 16.08.2019 to the effect that National Bravery Awards have been cancelled or are no longer recognized, and accordingly, held in favour of the Respondent. Since the academic session for the year 2019–2020 had already commenced and the admission process for the next academic year 2020–2021 was in process and the Respondent had not taken the NEET Exam for the year 2020–2021, the learned Single Judge directed that the Respondent shall be admitted to MBBS course for the academic year 2020–2021 based on her result of the NEET Exam held for the academic year 2019–

2020. It was further observed that in case there are more than two candidates who apply against the two seats of central pool for the academic year 2020– 2021, the appellant shall allocate/release an additional seat. The Union of India preferred LPA 329/2020, in which the Division Bench of this court, having regard to the fact that an additional seat had already been released in terms of the order of the learned Single Judge and the last date for admission i.e. 31.12.2020 was very close, instead of going into the question urged by the appellant / Union of India, ordered that the additional seat which has been specially created / got released for that year, be allocated to the Respondent, as the same was in the nature of supernumerary seat, the benefit whereof could only be availed by the Respondent and no one else. The relevant extract of the order dated 21.12.2020 passed by the Division Bench of this court in LPA 329/2020 reads as under:

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 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 supernumerary seat. Further, there is no doubt that the Petitioner is a deserving and meritorious student belonging to the EWS quota who made it to the merit list and was provisionally allotted a seat in the first round of counselling.

40. In the circumstances, this court is of the view that the petitioner‟s admission in the Mathematics and Computing (five years integrated Masters of Technology) Programme, against a supernumerary seat, ought not to be disturbed at this juncture.

41. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to allow the Petitioner to continue in the Mathematics and Computing (five years integrated Masters of Technology) Programme, at Respondent no.4 institute at IIT (ISM) Dhanbad.

42. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J. FEBRUARY 17, 2023