Delhi High Court – Orders
Daksh Singhal Through His Father And … vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 July, 2026
Author: Jasmeet Singh
Bench: Jasmeet Singh
$~156 & 165
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9503/2026
DAKSH SINGHAL THROUGH HIS FATHER AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN, SH. KAILASH CHANDRA MEENA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr Raghav Nagar, Adv
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr Dhananjai Rana CGSC for R1
Ms. Manisha Singh, ASC for R2
Mr Arjun Mitra, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Jayanti Jha, Advs.
for R3-4
165
+ W.P.(C) 9556/2026
PARAS BATRA ....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sahu, Mr. Manu
Loona, Ms. Aayushee Priya, Advs.
versus
JOINT SEAT ALLOCATION AUTHORITY JOSAA 2026
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr Arjun Mitra, Sr. Adv. with Ms.
Jayanti Jha, Advs. for R1-2
Mr. Aamir Zaffar Khan, Mr. Surya Joshi, Advs. for
R4
Ms. Saroj Bidawat SPC with Mr Ankush Kapoor
GP, Advs. for R5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 17.07.2026
CM APPL. 44166/2026 in W.P.(C) 9503/2026 & CM APPL. 44525/2026
in W.P.(C) 9556/2026
Exemptions granted, subject to all just exceptions.
The applications are disposed of.
W.P.(C) 9503/2026
1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2026 at 23:31:17
India seeking the following prayers:-
“a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature
of mandamus and/or certiorari, quashing/setting aside the Seat
Cancellation Letter dated 26.06.2026 issued by Respondent No.
3, to the extent it forecloses the Petitioner’s candidature for
consideration in subsequent rounds of JoSAA counselling,
2026;
b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature of
mandamus and/or certiorari directing Respondent Nos. 2 to 5
to suitably extend/relax, qua the Petitioner, the cut-off of 17:00
hrs on 15.07.2026 prescribed under JoSAA Business Rule
72(B), to a period of forty five (45) days or such other
reasonable period as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit from the
date of declaration of the Petitioner’s result in the CBSE Class
XII Mathematics Supplementary/Compartment Examination,
2026 (scheduled on 28.07.2026), and to accept the Petitioner’s
cleared/revised marksheet, if furnished within such extended
period, for the purposes of Rule 72(B);
c) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature of
mandamus, directing Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 to create and
keep reserved a supernumerary seat for the Petitioner in B.Tech
(Mechanical Engineering) at IIT Delhi (being the programme
and Institute earlier and provisionally allotted to the Petitioner
vide the Initial Seat Allotment dated 13.06.2026), pending
declaration of the Petitioner’s result in the said Compartment
Examination, and to grant admission to the Petitioner thereinThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2026 at 23:31:17
forthwith upon his furnishing proof of having cleared the said
Examination and satisfied the minimum eligibility criteria (65%
aggregate/top-20-percentile) applicable to his category;
d) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature of
mandamus, directing Respondent No. 2 to fast-track the
evaluation and declaration of the Petitioner’s result in the Class
XII Mathematics Supplementary/Compartment Examination,
2026, and, in any event, to declare the same at the earliest
possible date so as to enable compliance with the time lines of
Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5;
e) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature of
mandamus, directing Respondent No. 1, Respondent No. 2, on
the one hand, and Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, on the other, to
henceforth coordinate and align their respective examination
and admission timelines/schedules, so as to avoid recurrence of
such conflict and consequent prejudice to similarly placed
candidates in future academic sessions;
f) Award costs of the present proceedings in favour of the
Petitioner. …”
2. This writ petition seeks, amongst other reliefs, quashing of Seat
Cancellation Letter dated 26.06.2026 issued by respondent No. 3 to the extent
it forecloses petitioner’s candidature.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a student belonging to
Scheduled Tribe (“ST”) category, who duly qualified the JEE (Advance)
2026 Examination and secured an ST category rank of 144 (All India Rank
19382). Pursuant to Round 1 of the Joint Seat Allocation Authority
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2026 at 23:31:17
(“JoSAA”) counselling process, the petitioner was provisionally allotted a
seat in the B.Tech. (Mechanical Engineering) programme at IIT Delhi
4. The petitioner, however, secured only 64.2% marks in Mathematics in
his Class XIIth Board Examination against minimum eligibility of 65%
applicable to the ST category. Hence, the petitioner’s seat was cancelled vide
Seat Cancellation letter dated 26.06.2026. Hence the present petition.
5. For the said reasons, issue notice.
6. Mr. Rana, learned CGSC accepts notice on behalf of the respondent
No. 1, Ms. Singh, learned ASC accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.
2 and Ms. Jha, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent
Nos. 3 and 4.
7. Reply shall be filed before the next date of hearing.
8. Issue notice to respondent No. 5 through all modes including electronic
on the petitioner taking steps within one week from today, returnable on
21.08.2026.
W.P.(C) 9556/2026
9. This is a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:-
“(a) Quash and set aside the Seat Cancellation Letter dated
28.06.2026;
(b) Direct the Respondents No. 1 & 2 to accept the Petitioner’s
revised Class XII passing certificate within a reasonable time of
the declaration of the result of the CBSE Improvement
Examination 2026 (scheduled on 28.07.2026), notwithstanding
the deadline of 15.07.2026 and the conclusion of the
counselling rounds of JoSAA/CSAB 2026, and notwithstandingThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2026 at 23:31:17
anything contained in Clause 72(A) of the Business Rules;
(c) Direct the Respondents No. 1, 2 & 4, upon the Petitioner
attaining 65% aggregate, to restore to him the self-same seat —
B.Arch. (5 Years) at the School of Planning & Architecture,
New Delhi, Open (PwD) — by creating a supernumerary seat in
terms of Clause 72(B), and to permit him to join the Academic
Year 2026-27; and in the interregnum to keep one such seat
reserved and/or permit him to provisionally attend classes, so
that this Petition is not rendered infructuous. …”
10. The case of the petitioner is that he is a student with Benchmark
Disability (Specific Learning Disability of more than 40%), holding a valid
permanent UDID Card, who participated in the JoSAA 2026 Round-1
counselling process for admission to the Bachelor of Architecture (5-year)
programme at the School of Planning & Architecture, New Delhi, and was
allotted a seat in the B.Arch. programme against CRL-PwD (Persons with
disabilities) Rank 20.
11. The petitioner’s seat has been cancelled vide Seat Cancellation Letter
dated 28.06.2026 on the ground that his Class XIIth Central Board of
Secondary Education (“CBSE”) aggregate stands at 64.8% against the
relaxed threshold of 65% prescribed for PwD candidates. Hence the present
petition.
12. For said reasons, issue notice.
13. Ms. Jha, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent
Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Khan, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the
respondent No. 4 and Ms. Bidawat, learned SPC accept notice on behalf of the
respondent No. 5.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2026 at 23:31:17
14. Reply shall be filed before the next date of hearing.
15. Issue notice to respondent No. 3 through all modes including electronic
on the petitioner taking steps within one week from today, returnable on
21.08.2026.
CM APPL. 44167/2026 in W.P.(C) 9503/2026 and CM APPL.
44524/2026in W.P.(C) 9556/2026
16. These are applications filed under Section 151 of the CPC, 1908
seeking interim orders.
17. For the reasons stated in the application, issue notice.
18. In CM APPL. 44167/2026 in W.P.(C) 9503/2026, Mr. Rana, learned
CGSC accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 1, Ms. Singh, learned
ASC accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and Ms. Jha, learned
counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Reply shall
be filed before the next date of hearing.
19. In CM APPL. 44524/2026 in W.P.(C) 9556/2026, Ms. Jha, learned
counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Khan,
learned counsel accept notice on behalf of the respondent No. 4 and Ms.
Bidawat, learned SPC accept notice on behalf of the respondent No. 5. Reply
shall be filed before the next date of hearing.
20. In CM APPL. 44167/2026 in W.P.(C) 9503/2026, issue notice to
respondent No. 5 through all modes including electronic on the petitioner
taking steps within one week from today.
21. In CM APPL. 44524/2026in W.P.(C) 9556/2026, issue notice to
respondent No. 3 through all modes including electronic on the petitioner
taking steps within one week from today.
22. Mr. Mitra, learned senior counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2026 at 23:31:17
W.P.(C) 9503/2026, on instructions states that the seat allocation has already
concluded on 16.07.2026 and therefore, all seat have been allocated through
JoSAA. He further states that most of the boards conclude their
re-evaluation/re-testing after the seat allocation of the respondent institutions
and hence, the respondent institutions do not await the outcome of
re-evaluation/re-testing prior to the seat allocation and the IIT academic
calendar starts in the last week of July. He further relies on the judgment of
the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court passed in Pallavi Sharma v.
College of Vocational Studies & Anr., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 10249, and
more particularly on paragraph No. 14, which reads as under:-
“14. At any rate, the law is well settled that the procedure
prescribed in the Prospectus/Bulletin of Information issued by
the institutions is binding and no mandamus can be issued
directing the educational institutions to act contrary to their
own procedure (vide Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjit
Kaur; JT (2010) 7 SC 179).”
23. He states that in the present case, none of the conditions stipulated in
the brochure have been challenged by the petitioners, and without challenging
the same, the petitioners cannot seek any variation of the terms to their
benefits and hence no mandamus can be issued directing the respondent
institutions to do anything contrary to the terms and conditions of the
brochure. He submits that hence, the timelines fixed by the respondents are
sacrosanct.
24. Mr. Mitra, learned senior counsel, also relies on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Regional Officer, CBSE v. Ku. Sheena
Peethambaran and Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 719 and more particularly on
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2026 at 23:31:17
paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 which read as under:-
“6. This Court has on several occasions earlier deprecated
the practice of permitting the students to pursue their studies
and to appear in the examination under the interim orders
passed in the petitions. In most of such cases it is ultimately
pleaded that since the course was over or the result had been
declared, the matter deserves to be considered
sympathetically. It results in very awkward and difficult
situations. Rules stare straight into the face of the plea of
sympathy and concessions, against the legal provisions. A
few decisions on the point may be perused. In C.B.S.E. v. P.
Sunil Kumar [(1998) 5 SCC 377] the institutions whose
students were permitted to undertake the examination of the
Central Board of Secondary Education were not affiliated to
the Board, hence the students were not entitled to appear in
the examination. They were, however, allowed to appear in
the examination under the interim orders granted by the
Court in contravention of the rules and regulations of the
Board. The High Court considering the matter
sympathetically had not interfered, but this Court observed
thus: (SCC p. 381, para 4) “But to permit students of an
unaffiliated institution to appear at the examination
conducted by the Board under orders of the Court and then to
compel the Board to issue certificates in favour of those who
have undertaken examination would tantamount to
subversion of law and this Court will not be justified toThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2026 at 23:31:17
sustain the orders issued by the High Court on misplaced
sympathy in favour of the students.”
The order of the High Court was set aside. Another decision
reported in Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal
[(1993) 4 SCC 401] , a three-Judge Bench decision, was relied
upon in the case of Sunil Kumar [(1998) 5 SCC 377] . A passage
from the abovenoted decision was also quoted therein which
reads as follows: (SCC p. 403, para 7)
“We are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory
remedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly
misplaced, does no service to anyone. From the series of orders
that keep coming before us in academic matters, we find that
loose, ill-conceived sympathy masquerades as interlocutory
justice exposing judicial discretion to the criticism of
degenerating into private benevolence. This is subversive of
academic discipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to serious
impasse in academic life. Admissions cannot be ordered
without regard to the eligibility of the candidates. Decisions on
matters relevant to be taken into account at the interlocutory
stage cannot be deferred or decided later when serious
complications might ensue from the interim order itself. In the
present case, the High Court was apparently moved by
sympathy for the candidates than by an accurate assessment of
even the prima facie legal position. Such orders cannot be
allowed to stand. The courts should not embarrass academic
authorities by themselves taking over their functions.”
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2026 at 23:31:17
Yet another decision referred to is reported in A.P. Christians
Medical Educational Society v. Govt. of A.P. [(1986) 2 SCC 667]
, again a three-Judge Bench decision. It was observed in this
case: (SCC p. 678, para 10)
“We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the
statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made
by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more
destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the court to
disobey the laws.”
The above-referred matter relates to the admission and
examination of MBBS courses.
7. In the background of the law as laid down by this Court, we
find that in the case in hand the fact situation was even worse as
compared to the decision cited above. The student, namely,
Respondent 1 had failed to clear her Class IX examination which
was a necessary requirement as provided under the bye-laws of
the Board so as to be entitled to appear in Class X examination
conducted by the Board. Despite notice, no one has put in
appearance on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2 to indicate any fact
or circumstance so as to take any different view. Condoning the
lapses or overlooking the legal requirements in consideration of
mere sympathy factor does not solve the problem, rather breeds
more violations in the hope of being condoned. It disturbs the
discipline of the system and ultimately, adversely affects the
academic standards.”
25. I have heard learned counsels for the parties.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2026 at 23:31:17
26. In the present case, the Rule 72A and 72B of the JoSAA 2026 Business
Rules, reads as under:-
“72. It is possible that the Class XII passing status of a
candidate is revised [due to re-totaling, re-evaluation, etc.] by
the Class XII examination board AFTER the choice locking step
of joint seat allocation. The following business rules apply
consequent to such a revision of passing status only during the
seat allocation/ allotment:
(A) Due to revision of passing status, if a candidate becomes
ineligible because of not satisfying the “Performance in Class
XII (or equivalent) examination” requirement [Annexure 2(a)
for IITs/IISc and Annexure 2(b) for NIT+ System], then the
candidate will be made ineligible at the time of seat acceptance
/ document verification, or even at a later stage. Offered /
confirmed seat of such candidates shall accordingly stand
cancelled.
(B) Due to revision of passing status, if a candidate now
satisfies the “Performance in Class XII (or equivalent)
examination” requirement [Annexure 2(a) for IITs/IISc and
Annexure 2(b) for NIT+ System] and becomes eligible for
admission, then such a candidate has to approach the
organizing institute (IIT Roorkee) by sending an email to
[email protected] with the revised passing certificate by July 15,
2026 17:00 hrs. The candidate will be considered for seat
allocation only in subsequent rounds (if any), provided the
candidate had registered and has filled choices in the JoSAAThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2026 at 23:31:17
portal before the respective deadline, even though not eligible
at the time. The allocated seat (if any) shall be the same as what
the candidate would have got on the basis of the revised passing
status to begin with. To ensure this, a supernumerary seat will
be created, if needed.”
27. Pursuant to the said rules, both the petitioners applied for
compartment/improvement exams in Mathematics and the said exam is now
scheduled to be conducted by the CBSE on 28.07.2026. However, before
conducting the improvement/compartment examinations, the respondent
institutions have already conducted their final counselling rounds and have
excluded the petitioners from the same.
28. If that be so, I am of the view that Rule 72B of the JoSAA 2026
Business Rules becomes illusionary and moonshine without any meaningful
interpretation.
29. Once the respondent institutions have themselves provided children
including children with special categories (PwD, SC, ST) to improve their
score to become eligible, it must be done in a meaningful manner. If the date
of 15.07.2026, 17:00 hrs as fixed by the respondent is treated as sacrosanct,
all children appearing for CBSE compartment/improvement exams which is
scheduled to be held on 28.07.2026 will automatically miss the deadline of
15.07.2026 and on that account will be declared ineligible.
30. The petitioners in the present case are meritorious students, having
obtained seats with their hardwork and efforts at IIT-Delhi and School of
Planning and Architecture, Delhi. Merely because the CBSE is holding the
compartment/improvement exams on a later date or the respondent institution
in their wisdom have fixed the date of final counselling as 15.07.2026
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2026 at 23:31:17
(without noting the date of compartment/improvement by CBSE), the same
cannot operate to the prejudice of the petitioners.
31. It is common knowledge that children study for hours and months to
get admissions in prestigious institutions and their efforts cannot be ignored
merely because CBSE and respondent institutions are not in sync with each
other.
32. For the said reasons, the petitioners have established a prima facie case
and the balance of convenience lies in their favour.
33. The judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Pallavi
Sharma (supra) relied upon by Mr. Mitra, learned senior counsel, is
distinguishable on facts. In the said case, the Court reiterated the settled
principle that the terms of the Prospectus/Admission Brochure are binding
and that no mandamus can ordinarily be issued directing an educational
institution to act contrary to the prescribed procedure. In the present case,
however, the petitioners are not seeking any direction contrary to the JoSAA
Business Rules or seeking relaxation of any condition contained therein.
Rather, the petitioners seek a meaningful implementation of Rule 72(B) of the
JoSAA 2026 Business Rules, which itself forms part of the Business Rules
and expressly envisages consideration of candidates upon revision of their
Class XII passing status.
34. Similarly the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ku. Sheena
Peethambaran Sharma (supra) relied upon by Mr. Mitra, learned senior
counsel, is also not applicable in the present case. In that case, the candidate
had failed to satisfy the essential eligibility criteria prescribed under the
CBSE Bye-laws and the Court was called upon to overlook the statutory
requirements on sympathetic considerations. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2026 at 23:31:17
declined such relief, holding that no direction could be issued contrary to the
governing Rules. However, in the present case, the petitioners are neither
seeking any relaxation of the eligibility criteria nor any direction contrary to
the Rules. On the contrary, the petitioners seek implementation of Rule 72(B)
of the JoSAA 2026 Business Rules, which expressly contemplates
consideration of candidates upon revision of their Class XII passing status
and provides for creation of a supernumerary seat. The controversy, therefore,
is confined to giving a meaningful interpretation to Rule 72(B) of the JoSAA
2026 Business Rules and not to granting admission dehors the Rules.
35. A closer scrutiny of the Rule 72B of the JoSAA 2026 Business Rules
shows that if the petitioners are successful in clearing the
compartment/improvement exam, this Court can create a supernumerary seat
in the same stream in which the petitioner was originally allotted the seat.
Hence, the anxiety of the petitioners is well addressed and in case the
petitioners are successful, the petitioners will be so allotted a supernumerary
seat by this Court.
36. List on 21.08.2026.
37. In case, the results are declared earlier, the petitioners will be at liberty
to move an application seeking early hearing of the main petitions.
38. Dasti under signature of the Court Master.
JASMEET SINGH, J
JULY 17, 2026/AS
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2026 at 23:31:17
