Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1838 (RAJ)

Arun Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India

2012-08-27

RAGHUVENDRA S.RATHORE

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has sought to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking the relief that he may be allowed to extend upon the choices for the courses which he has to opt after declaration of result in the Joint Entrance Examination-2012 for IIT Colleges. Further, he has prayed that he may be permitted to apply for unexhausted choices.It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of hearing of this writ petition, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he does not want to stick to the course of his choice but he may be given admission in any of the courses which were available in accordance of his merit or which could now be given to him. 2. The petitioner having possessed the requisite qualification of Senior Secondary Examination with 79.08% marks and securing First Division, thought of choosing Bachelor of Engineering in an IIT college as his career. Accordingly, he applied for the Joint Entrance Examination-2012 which was conducted by respondent No. 2. He had filled an application (No. C22106152) on 14.11.2011 for participating in the said examination (Annex. 1). The petitioner was registered at No. 2130069. He had then appeared in the Joint Entrance Examination on 8.4.2012, conducted by respondent No. 2, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi. The result of the said examination was declared on 18.5.2012 wherein the petitioner secured an All India Rank of 1981 (Annex. 3). 3. Thereafter, the candidates in merit were called to participate in the counselling which started from 20.5.2012. The entire process of counsellings was done on line. The petitioner had given his choice on line for 13 courses/colleges. A candidate was to give a total number of 215 choices. According to the petitioner he had given his choice on 20.5.2012 and onwards but after having given 13 choices when he wanted to give more, the system did not accept it on account of technical fault with the server. Therefore, it was found that only 13 choices of the petitioner were locked and accordingly the status was shown on the computer. The petitioner on having realised his inability to opt for more choices, immediately contacted the office of respondent No. 2 on 11.6.2012. But respondent No. 2 expressed his inability to do anything for adding choice for the petitioner. Therefore, it was found that only 13 choices of the petitioner were locked and accordingly the status was shown on the computer. The petitioner on having realised his inability to opt for more choices, immediately contacted the office of respondent No. 2 on 11.6.2012. But respondent No. 2 expressed his inability to do anything for adding choice for the petitioner. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come before this Court by way of filing this writ petition, and making the prayers as aforementioned. 4. On notices having been issued to the respondents, a counter affidavit came to be filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 raising objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court, in respect of issuance of writ to the respondents. But during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents has fairly submitted that his emphasis is only on the merits of the case and not to any such objection with regard to jurisdiction.It is deposed by respondent No. 2 in the said affidavit that the date of submission of choice on line and filling up courses was upto 10.6.2012 and the closing time for master server (on line) was 17.00 PM. The schedule was given in the counselling broacher which was provided to every and each candidate. Further, it is deposed that the petitioner has admitted to log-in on 10.6.2012 at 6.32 PM, i.e., to say much after the closing time which was 5.00 PM. The master server had not permitted anyone, including the petitioner, to make any attempt in the system after the closing time. Therefore, it is said by respondent that the averments made by the petitioner with regard to non-functioning of the master server is not correct. According to the respondents, master computer/server was in operation from 18.5.2012 to 10.6.2012 without any break and it did not suffer from any technical fault. It is said that the petitioner had for the first time logged-in on 20.5.2012 and continued thereafter from time to time. He had saved one choice i.e., D-4109 on 2.6.2012. Subsequently, the petitioner had given 13 choices, in all, on 4.6.2012 by adding his preferences. The log sheet of the master server discloses that after 4.6.2012, the petitioner logged-in on 7.6.2012 and thereafter on 10.6.2012. 5. He had saved one choice i.e., D-4109 on 2.6.2012. Subsequently, the petitioner had given 13 choices, in all, on 4.6.2012 by adding his preferences. The log sheet of the master server discloses that after 4.6.2012, the petitioner logged-in on 7.6.2012 and thereafter on 10.6.2012. 5. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner had sufficient time and opportunity to give his choice on line and on having failed to do so, now he cannot be permitted to add his choice of courses or be given admission in a College, other than the one for which he had given choice upto 10.6.2012. It is further the case of the respondents that even if the petitioner got selected for on line counsellings, there was no assurance/guarantee that he would get admission as "it depends upon his rank and the selection of choice which he has given on line." The respondents have also submitted that "the petitioner was always a part of counselling process and his rank was considered" accordingly. But the choice opted by him went to the candidates having much higher rank. Therefore, the respondents have prayed that in view of the aforesaid facts and the submissions made by them, the writ petition be dismissed. 6. On consideration of the material on record particularly, the one issued by respondent No. 2 with regard to admissions, it is revealed that admission to IIT Colleges, which is through the Joint Entrance Examination conducted by different IIT Institutions, with yearly rotation, is based on merit-cum-preference. 7. The admission to IIT colleges are given on the basis of rank secured by the candidates in an All India Competitive Examination to be held for the said purpose. The choice of the course has also to be taken into consideration as it is the preference of the course which the candidate wants to take up for his studies. The rank of the candidate is always to be the paramount consideration at the time of counselling. A choice of course given by a candidate is to be looked into but in case another candidate with higher rank opts for the same then admission has to be given to him. In other words, the rank secured by a candidate is the first and foremost consideration while giving admission to the candidates. A choice of course given by a candidate is to be looked into but in case another candidate with higher rank opts for the same then admission has to be given to him. In other words, the rank secured by a candidate is the first and foremost consideration while giving admission to the candidates. Even while considering the choice of course in IIT Colleges, candidates holding higher ranks has the right for admission for the same as against the candidate with lower in rank. Therefore, admission to IIT college is on the basis of rank secured by the candidate and not on account of any other reason, namely choice of course etc. A candidate with lower rank cannot be given admission on the ground of choice of course in a college, by leaving out a person of higher rank. The rank of a candidate cannot be wiped out by giving admission to one holding a lower rank on the ground that the choice of course given by him has been taken by a candidate having a rank higher. The candidates with higher rank should be first adjusted as admission in such institutions with higher courses, has to be given on the basis of merit. The merit secured by a candidate is not to be compromised with in any manner. 8. The counselling broacher (Annex. R-7) gives information under 1.5 for on line choice filling as under: "After registration and payment of counselling fee, the candidate needs to login to the JCOP (http://jeecounselling.iitd.ac.in/JDOP) using the User-ID, password and the IIT-JEE 2012 registration number printed on the IIT-JEE 2012 Admit Card. On this web page the candidate enters the choices of courses in the order of his/her preference. This choice-order is very important for the following reasons: The course allocation for a candidate is done strictly on the basis of the all India rank (AIR) he/she gets based on the performance in IIT-JEE 2012 as well as the courses he/she selects in order of preference during Counselling. For example, a candidate with AIR 558 will be allotted a seat after all candidates with AIR less than or equal to 557 have been allotted one. For every candidate, if his/her first choice is available, he/she is allotted that choice. Otherwise further choices, strictly in order of the declared preferences in the choice sheet are considered. For example, a candidate with AIR 558 will be allotted a seat after all candidates with AIR less than or equal to 557 have been allotted one. For every candidate, if his/her first choice is available, he/she is allotted that choice. Otherwise further choices, strictly in order of the declared preferences in the choice sheet are considered. The highest choice available is allotted to the candidate and all subsequent choices are ignored. If the candidate does not fill sufficient number of courses as choices, he/she may not get any course allotment, especially in the case where the candidate has low AIR. The choices filled by the candidate in JCOP are final and cannot be changed at a later stage. Thus, in their own interest, candidates must fill in a sufficiently large number of choices of courses in the decreasing order of preference. 9. The petitioner is a native of village Jasrasar in Distt. Sikar. His father is a constable in Rajasthan Police and posted at Bikaner. At the relevant time, the petitioner was residing alone in the village along with his grand-father. The village of the petitioner was tacking the facility of Internet or cyber-cafe. He had gone 25 Kms. away from his village, at Sikar, to apply on line for Joint Entrance Examination, 2012. He had to again go to Sikar for giving choice of courses in the IIT institutions on line at the time of counselling, after securing the rank of 1981. The petitioner did apply for choice of courses in the institutions of IIT and according to him, it was on account of lack of facility that it took him time to give choice immediately and also technical failure of computer/server that his subsequent choices could not be saved. However, the petitioner did contact the office of respondent No. 2 immediately thereafter i.e., 11.6.2012 and tried to persuade the person concern to allow him to give further choice of courses. 10. It appears that on account of lack of facility nearby and technical skill for giving choice of courses, logging-in or on account of fault in the system that further choice sought to be given by the petitioner could not be saved. In any case, the fact remains that the petitioner had himself contacted the office of respondent No. 2 on the very next day and this is an undisputed fact. In any case, the fact remains that the petitioner had himself contacted the office of respondent No. 2 on the very next day and this is an undisputed fact. After considering the case of the petitioner and the process of giving choice of courses at the time of counselling through on line, it can at the most be said to be a case of slackness on the part of the petitioner in applying for choice during the scheduled period. But even thereafter the petitioner contacted the office of respondent No. 2 for removal of his difficulty. Such mistake on the part of the candidate while operating logging on line are bona fide and cannot be said to be intentional. It cannot be said that it was done to gain any advantage. The candidate who has bonafidely or for reasons beyond his reach committed such mistakes should not be de-barred from admission particularly when he has secured a higher rank in All India Competitive Examination. In case other candidates who have secured lesser marks are given admission before the petitioner then it would tantamount to bidding good-bye to merit. Admission given to a candidate with lesser merit would give way to choice of courses over and above merit which was never and could not be the intention in giving admission to IIT colleges.As a matter of fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to persuade the Court by making submissions that the petitioner is ready and willing to take admission in any of the courses and would not stick to any course of his choice. In the opinion of this Court, this itself is sufficient to make the petitioner suffer for his mistake in not giving complete choice of courses. In case the petitioner is completely denied admission in any of the courses of the IIT colleges and is left out despite of having secured an All India Rank of 1981, then it would not only ruin his career but his entire family would be at a loss and the society would also be loosing a talent. It is the need of the hour that persons with caliber be taken from all comer, including rural areas. 11. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner had applied for written examination by submitting an application on 14.11.2011. It is the need of the hour that persons with caliber be taken from all comer, including rural areas. 11. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner had applied for written examination by submitting an application on 14.11.2011. He did possess the requisite qualification for the said examination by having passed Senior Secondary Examination in the First Division (79.08%). Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the examination on 8.4.2012 on having been given the Registration Number 2130069. The result of the said examination was declared on 18.5.2012. The petitioner had secured All India Rank of 1981. Thereafter, the petitioner did give the choice for courses but the same was not complete. According to the respondents whatever choice the petitioner had given, he was considered against the same but as candidates having higher rank had also opted for the said choice and therefore it could not be given to him. 12. According to Para 1.5 "on line choice filing" given in the counselling Brochure, IIT JEE 2012, the course allocation for a candidate is done strictly on the basis of the All India Rank (AIR) he/she gets based on the performance in IIT - JEE 2012 as well as the courses he/she selects in order of preference during counselling. This has been further clarified in the brochure by an illustration that a candidate with AIR 558 will be allotted a seat after all candidates with AIR less than or equal to 557 have been allotted one. Therefore, a candidate having an All India Rank in JEE 2012 more than the petitioner (1981) will be allotted a seat only after him.Even in respect of non-filing of sufficient number of courses as choices, the brochure provides that candidate having low AIR may not get any course allotment. This can be so because person at the lowest in the rank possibly may not get any course left. But so far as the petitioner is concerned, he is having AIR 1981. 13. The counsel for the petitioner has, during the course of arguments, candidly submitted that the petitioner may be given admission in any course and he would not ask for the choice of course given by him. This Court is of the considered opinion that merit of a candidate cannot be totally ignored when he has secured higher rank. 13. The counsel for the petitioner has, during the course of arguments, candidly submitted that the petitioner may be given admission in any course and he would not ask for the choice of course given by him. This Court is of the considered opinion that merit of a candidate cannot be totally ignored when he has secured higher rank. He may not be entitled to course for which he may be having the choice, in addition to the one already given earlier, but he cannot be totally left out without admission in any of the IIT Colleges and persons lower in rank gets admission only because of choice of course was given during the course of counselling. There is no doubt that the respondents had given a procedure to be adopted by the candidates during the course of counselling. But then a candidate having higher rank cannot be thrown out. He may not have given a large number of choice of courses but when admissions are finalised then the candidate like the petitioner having higher rank has to be considered and given admission in IIT college before all the vacancies are exhausted by giving admission to persons with lower rank. If the petitioner who is having a higher rank is not given admission to any course of IIT colleges and all the seats are filled up by the respondents, then it would amount to travesty of justice because the petitioner has been denied admission despite of his securing all India Rank of 1981. 14. In a recent case of Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences & Ors., 2012 (6) SCALE 287 : 2012 (2) WLC (SC) Civilo 464 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the question of admission to higher courses in medical etc., has clarified the decisions given earlier. In that case, the appellant left the counselling place without appearing before the counselling Board. Resultantly, her candidature was not considered for admission to the MBBS course under the ESM category and the candidate lower in merit was given the admission. It was the opinion of the Court that it would be too far fetched to accept that the appellant, though was physically present at the time of taking of attendance, thumb impressions and photography, did not respond to the call for counselling at the relevant time. It was the opinion of the Court that it would be too far fetched to accept that the appellant, though was physically present at the time of taking of attendance, thumb impressions and photography, did not respond to the call for counselling at the relevant time. The Court further observed that no reason whatsoever could be seen for absence of the appellant at the relevant moment from the record before the Court. In view of the fact that the appellant had filed the writ petition within a week of the second counselling, the Court accepted the facts averred in the writ petition and directed the respondents to admit the appellant to the MBBS course. It further directed that it would be open for the respondents to see that admission of other students lower in merit is not cancelled. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 22, observed as under: "At this stage, we may refer to certain judgments of the Court where it has clearly spelt out that the criteria for selection has to be merit alone. In fact, merit, fairness and transparency are the ethos of the process for admission to such courses. It will be travesty of the scheme formulated by this Court and duly notified by the states, if the Rule of Merit is defeated by inefficiently, inaccuracy or improper methods of admission. There cannot be any circumstance where the Rules of merit can be compromised. From the facts of the present case, it is evident that merit has been a casualty. It will be useful to refer to the view consistently taken by this Court that merit alone is the criteria for such admission and circumvention of merit is not only impermissible but is also abuse of the process of law. 15. After taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that though the course in an IIT college in which admission is now given to the petitioner is to be seen by the respondents but on the basis of merit secured by the petitioner, he cannot be denied admission totally. Appropriate interim orders had already been passed by this Court on 4.7.2012 and 17.7.2012. Appropriate interim orders had already been passed by this Court on 4.7.2012 and 17.7.2012. In case it is not possible to give admission to the petitioner to other course of IIT colleges of his choice, he may be given admission to any course as has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments.Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent No. 2 is directed to give admission to the petitioner in any course so that he may pursue the course of Bachelor of Engineering in an IIT College.Writ Petition Allowed. *******