W.P.(C) 10794/2025 $~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010490462025 Date of decision: 06.08.2026 + W.P.(C) 10794/2025 & CM APPL. 44633/2025 LAVANYA DESWAL ....Petitioner Through: Mr Ankit Singh Sinsinwar with Mr Ravi Kumar Advs versus JOINT ADMISSION COMMITTEE DELHI & ANR.....Respondents Through: Mrs Avnish Ahlawat SC GNCTD Services, Mr Nitesh Kumar Singh, Advs Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Ms. C. AnkeetaAppanna, Ms. Madhura Anand Chitnis, Mr. Ishit Mahajan, Advs. for R3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH : JASMEET SINGH, J (ORAL) CM APPL. 24524/2026 1. This is an application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908 seeking deletion of the applicant namely Mr. Soham Bharadwaj, who has been impleaded as respondent No. 3 in the main petition. 2. It is stated that the applicant was offered a seat in Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, Delhi, Electronics and VLSI Engineering (EVE) branch. 3. Since the applicant has got admission at PES University, Bangalore Signed By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR Signing Date:11.08.2026 19:36 W.P.(C) 10794/2025 and has given up the seat in Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, Delhi, Electronics and VLSI Engineering (EVE) branch. 4. In this view of the matter, Mr. Soham Bharadwaj is deleted from the memo of parties and his stand is taken on record. 5. The present application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. W.P.(C) 10794/2025 6. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:- “(a) A writ of certiorari calling for the records of the case for perusal; (b) A writ of certiorari quashing the action of the Respondents in not considering the Petitioner for IIIT Delhi, Branch- Electronics and VLSI Engineering (EVE), despite the seat being available at the time of Upgradation Round, being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and in violation of the principles of equity, justice and good conscience and Article 41 of the Constitution of India. (c) A writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to grant admission to the Petitioner in IIIT Delhi, Branch- Electronics and VLSI Engineering (EVE), under GNGNO category, for all intents and purposes. (e) A writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to pay the cost of this petition to the Petitioner. ...” 7. The brief facts are that the respondent No. 1/Joint Admission Committee (“JAC”), Delhi, is a consortium of Institutions for admission to Signed By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR Signing Date:11.08.2026 19:36 W.P.(C) 10794/2025 Undergraduate Programmes in Delhi Government funded premier universities, offering Engineering and Architecture programmes. The institutions which participated in JAC for B.Tech and B.Arch programmes are namely Delhi Technological University (“DTU”), Netaji Subhas University of Technology (“NSUT”), Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical University for Women (“IGDTUW”) and Indraprastha Institute of InformationTechnology, Delhi (“IIIT-Delhi”). 8. The admissions are done on the basis of rank of students obtained in Joint Entrance Examination, (“JEE”) (Main) conducted by the National Testing Agency (“NTA”). As per 2025 brochure for the Registration-cum- Counselling of respondent No. 1, 85% seats in all the participating institutions are earmarked for Resident Indian Nationals belonging to Delhi Region and the balance 15% seats were to be filled by candidates belonging to Outside Delhi region. Some of the important provisions of the said brochure are relevant and read as under:- Signed By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR Signing Date:11.08.2026 19:36 W.P.(C) 10794/2025 Signed By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR Signing Date:11.08.2026 19:36 W.P.(C) 10794/2025 Signed By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR Signing Date:11.08.2026 19:36 W.P.(C) 10794/2025 Signed By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR Signing Date:11.08.2026 19:36 W.P.(C) 10794/2025 9. The guidelines for the spot round is also relevant and reads as under:- Signed By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR Signing Date:11.08.2026 19:36 W.P.(C) 10794/2025 Signed By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR Signing Date:11.08.2026 19:36 W.P.(C) 10794/2025 10. The petitioner appeared in JEE-Mains examinations and secured an All India Rank of 20,529. The petitioner was allotted a seat in DTU, Branch- Signed By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR Signing Date:11.08.2026 19:36 W.P.(C) 10794/2025 Production and Industrial Engineering, in the 2nd Round of counselling. Thereafter, the petitioner was upgraded in the 3rd round and in the 5th round was allotted seat in IGDTUW, Branch- Computer Science and Engineering. 11. Subsequently on 19.07.2025, the result of the upgradation round was declared where the petitioner was not upgraded. The schedule for spot round of counselling along with tentative list of vacancies was also announced wherein there were three vacant seats available at IIIT Delhi (outside Delhi), Branch-Electronics and VLSI Engineering (EVE). 12. The petitioner is aggrieved, as according to the petitioner, the petitioner should have automatically been granted a seat at IIIT Delhi (outside Delhi), Branch-Electronics and VLSI Engineering (EVE) in the said three vacant seats and only two seats should have been available for spot round counselling. 13. Hence, the present petition. 14. Ms. Alam, learned counsel for the respondents, draws my attention to the counter affidavit and more particularly paragraph No. 17 which reads as under:- “17. That at the outset it is most respectfully submitted that the whole case of the Petitioner is premised in the fact that there were 3 vacant seats at IIIT-Delhi for in Electronics and VLSI Engineering (EVE) after getting upgradation in the 5thround of counselling, however, she was not allowed to upgrade her seat as she did get upgradation of her seat in the 5thround of counselling in Computer Science and Engineering at IGDTUW. This claim of the Petitioner is nor permissible because no up Signed By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR Signing Date:11.08.2026 19:36 W.P.(C) 10794/2025 gradation is allowed in the Spot Round of Counselling. The candidates present at the Spot Counselling is allotted the seat as per merit. Candidates who are not present misses the bus. The Petitioner, also participated in the Spot Round and candidates higher in merit than the Petitioner were allotted the seats.” 15. She argues that the people who are higher than the petitioner as per IIIT-Delhi rank would be offered seats and there were people higher in rank than the petitioner and hence the petitioner was not upgraded. 16. I have heard learned counsels for the parties. 17. Mr. Sinsinwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Krishna Sradha v. State of A.P., (2020) 17 SCC 465, and more particularly on paragraph No. 13, which reads as under:- “13. In light of the discussion/observations made hereinabove, a meritorious candidate/student who has been denied an admission in MBBS course illegally or irrationally by the authorities for no fault of his/her and who has approached the Court in time and so as to see that such a meritorious candidate may not have to suffer for no fault of his/her, we answer the reference as under: 13.1. That in a case where candidate/student has approached the court at the earliest and without any delay and that the question is with respect to the admission in medical course all the efforts shall be made by the court concerned to dispose of the proceedings by giving priority and at the earliest. Signed By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR Signing Date:11.08.2026 19:36 W.P.(C) 10794/2025 13.2. Under exceptional circumstances, if the court finds that there is no fault attributable to the candidate and the candidate has pursued his/her legal right expeditiously without any delay and there is fault only on the part of the authorities and/or there is apparent breach of rules and regulations as well as related principles in the process of grant of admission which would violate the right of equality and equal treatment to the competing candidates and if the time schedule prescribed — 30th September, is over, to do the complete justice, the Court under exceptional circumstances and in rarest of rare cases direct the admission in the same year by directing to increase the seats, however, it should not be more than one or two seats and such admissions can be ordered within reasonable time i.e. within one month from 30th September i.e. cut-off date and under no circumstances, the Court shall order any admission in the same year beyond 30th October. However, it is observed that such relief can be granted only in exceptional circumstances and in the rarest of rare cases. In case of such an eventuality, the Court may also pass an order cancelling the admission given to a candidate who is at the bottom of the merit list of the category who, if the admission would have been given to a more meritorious candidate who has been denied admission illegally, would not have got the admission, if the Court deems it fit and proper, however, after giving an opportunity of hearing to a student whose admission is sought to be cancelled. Signed By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR Signing Date:11.08.2026 19:36 W.P.(C) 10794/2025 13.3. In case the Court is of the opinion that no relief of admission can be granted to such a candidate in the very academic year and wherever it finds that the action of the authorities has been arbitrary and in breach of the rules and regulations or the prospectus affecting the rights of the students and that a candidate is found to be meritorious and such candidate/student has approached the court at the earliest and without any delay, the court can mould the relief and direct the admission to be granted to such a candidate in the next academic year by issuing appropriate directions by directing to increase in the number of seats as may be considered appropriate in the case and in case of such an eventuality and if it is found that the management was at fault and wrongly denied the admission to the meritorious candidate, in that case, the Court may direct to reduce the number of seats in the management quota of that year, meaning thereby the student/students who was/were denied admission illegally to be accommodated in the next academic year out of the seats allotted in the management quota. 13.4. Grant of the compensation could be an additional remedy but not a substitute for restitutional remedies. Therefore, in an appropriate case the Court may award the compensation to such a meritorious candidate who for no fault of his/her has to lose one full academic year and who could not be granted any relief of admission in the same academic year. Signed By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR Signing Date:11.08.2026 19:36 W.P.(C) 10794/2025 13.5. It is clarified that the aforesaid directions pertain to admission in MBBS course only and we have not dealt with postgraduate medical course.” 18. Since the applicant in CM APPL. 24524/2026 has vacated the seat, there are two seats available at IIIT-Delhi, Branch Electronics and VLSI Engineering (EVE).To my mind, once the spot round counseling was done, before that the petitioner should have been upgraded to the IIIT-Delhi and should have been offered the seat, as in case, candidates higher in rank than the petitioner opted for those seats, the same should not have been available in the spot round counseling. 19. However, since the same didn’t happen, and there are still two seats available at IIIT-Delhi, Branch Electronics and VLSI Engineering (EVE) and there is no reason as to why the petitioner should not be given one of these seats. The petitioner is a meritorious student and no fault is attributable to her. 20. For the said reasons, it is directed that the respondents shall take necessary measures to ensure that the petitioner is admitted at IIIT-Delhi, Branch Electronics and VLSI Engineering (EVE). 21. With aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, along with pending applications, if any. JASMEET SINGH, J AUGUST 6, 2026/AS (Corrected and released on 10.08.2026) Signed By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR Signing Date:11.08.2026 19:36