[2025:RJ-JP:27610-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 857/2025 Angel Soni D/o Chandra Prakash Soni, Aged About 17 Years, R/o 25/26, KGN Bagh, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Through Her Legal Guardian Chandra Prakash Soni (Father) ----Appellant Versus 1. The National Testing Agency, Through Its Chairperson, First Floor, NSIC-MDBP Building, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi, Delhi 110020. 2. The Chairman, Central Board Of Secondary Education, Cbse Integrated Office Complex Sector-23, Phase-1, Dwarka New Delhi- 110077. 3. The Chairman, Joint Seat Allocation Authority, Indian Institute Of Technology Kanpur, G66M-W8P, Kalyanpur, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh 208016. 4. The Director, Indian Institute Of Technology Kanpur, G66M-W8P, Kalyanpur, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh 208016. 5. The Director, Indian Institute Of Technology Delhi, Iit Campus, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, Delhi 110016. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akshit Gupta with Mr. Nakul Bansal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI Order 22/07/2025 1. This appeal has been filed assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the prayer for allowing the appellant to continue as a Student of IIT, Delhi after having been admitted, was not accepted by the Learned Single Judge. 2. The facts which have come on record are that the appellant had appeared in the JEE Main examination while her result of class XIIth was yet to be declared. Consequently, she cleared the JEE main examination and applied for admission in IIT, Delhi. 3. On the basis of her class XIIth examination merit, she failed to secure 75 per cent. She applied for revaluation and her marks [2025:RJ-JP:27610-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-857/2025] were increased from 73.2 per cent to 73.8 per cent, whereas the minimum qualifying marks for admission to IIT are 75 per cent in class XIIth. Resultantly, the admission of the appellant was required to be cancelled. However, there is a provision for appearing in supplementary examination to improve the score but since the supplementary examination is scheduled from 15.07.2025, and the process of counseling for getting admission in IIT, Delhi is scheduled from 16.07.2025 to 21.07.2025 because of which, her admission was liable to be cancelled, as the revised result of scoring more than 75 per cent could not possibly be submitted before the said date of counseling. She, therefore, approached this Court, where she has been relying on Rule 72 of the Business Rules for Joint Seat Allocation for the Academic Programs offered by the IITs, NITs, IIEst, IIITs and other GFTIs for academic year 2025-26 (for short 'the Business Rules') which states that the revised marks are required for allocation prior to the date of participation in counseling. 4. Learned counsel has taken us to the business rule prepared for admission in relation to candidates who have not passed the XIIth examination in the original result but are likely to get a revision in passing status and submits that as the Rule 72 (B) of the Business Rules provides for ensuring a supernumerary seat if the candidate has secured a revision in passing status, the appellant's admission should be protected. He submits that appellant has already appeared in the supplementary examination, the result of which is expected to be declared [2025:RJ-JP:27610-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-857/2025] somewhere in August this year. This Court has considered Rule 72 of the Business Rules which reads as under: "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 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 and Annexure 2(b) for NIT+System] and becomes eligible for admission, then such a candidate has to approach the organizing institute (IIT Kanpur) with the revised passing certificate. 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 JoSAA 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 revised passing status to begin with. To ensure this, a supernumerary seat will be created, if needed. (C) If a candidate, who was eligible, continues to be eligible even after revision of Class XII passing status, there will not be any change in seat allocation." 5. From the perusal of above provisions, it is apparent that candidates can be considered subsequently for continuing their [2025:RJ-JP:27610-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-857/2025] admission if they satisfy the condition with regard to their performance in class XIIth or equivalent examination, due to revision of passing status. We have noticed that the appellant has already appeared in the supplementary examination, however, this Court would not enter into a presumption or contemplation as to the appellant clearing the examination with 75 per cent or above and, therefore, at this stage, this Court cannot protect her admission as admittedly she has not been able to obtain 75 per cent marks during class XIIth even after revaluation. 6. However, if she clears the minimum required performance in class XIIth supplementary examination after the result is declared, she can always approach the concerned organising institute in terms of Rule 72 (B) of the Business Rules as mentioned hereinabove, and her decision with regard to the admission can be taken in accordance thereto, at this stage there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, the aforesaid observation shall be taken into consideration by the concerned authorities at the relevant time, if the situation so arises. 7. The present appeal stands, disposed of. 8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J GAURAV/Garima/432-S