High Court
Facts
WP NO. 7594 OF 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 7594 OF 2025PALAK RAVI JAISWAL,Age : 18 years, Occu. : Student,R/o. : plot no. E-66, N-4, CIDCO, Aurangabad...PetitionerVERSUS1.UNION OF INDIA Through Its Secretary,Ministry Of Education,127-C, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.2.NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY,Through its chairperson,First floor, nsic-mdbp building,Okhla industrial estate,New delhi, delhi 110020.3.JOINT SEAT ALLOCATION AUTHORITY,Through its Chairperson,Local Organizing Committee, CSAB-2025National Institute of Technology RourkelaOdisha – 769008, India....Respondents…•Mr. Aditya N Sikchi & Mr. Rahul Kasat, Advocate for thePetitioner.•Mr. Bhushan Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.•Mr. Arjun Mitra a/w. Mr. Krishna P. Rodge, Advocate forRespondent No. 3.…CORAM: MANISH PITALE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.DATE: 08.07.20251/22 WP NO. 7594 OF 2025ORDER : (Per Manish Pitale, J.)1.The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondent No. 3 -Joint Seat Allocation Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘JoSAA’)dated 23.06.2025, whereby the petitioner has been held ineligible foradmission to the Bachelor of Architecture (B.Arch.) Course, on theground of not having secured minimum 75% (Seventy Five Percent)aggregate marks in class XII and also having failed to come withinthe top Twenty percentile of the board examination. The principalcontention of the petitioner is that the aforesaid eligibility criterionwas added subsequent to the process of examination and admissionhaving commenced and as per settled law, the rules of the gamecould not have been changed midway through the game. Accordingto the petitioner, she satisfies the eligibility criterion specified in theinformation bulletin issued by respondent No. 2 - National TestingAgency (hereinafter referred to as ‘NTA’) for entrance examinationleading to admission to various institutions under the aegis ofrespondent No. 3 – JoSAA.2.The chronology of events in brief leading filing of the presentpetition is that the petitioner appeared for the Higher SecondaryCertificate Examination i.e. Class – XII examination conducted by theMaharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher SecondaryExamination in February – 2025. She secured 453 marks out of 6002/22 WP NO. 7594 OF 2025marks. She also appeared for Joint Entrance Examination (JEE)conducted by respondent No. 2 – NTA in January - 2025 andApril – 2025. The students appearing for such examinations arepermitted to choose the score of either of the attempts in theexamination.3.On the basis of the score of the petitioner in the JEE (Main)2025 examination, she secured All India Rank 292 in paper 2A andAll India Rank 565 in paper 2B in the OBC-NCL category.In May/June – 2025, respondent No. 3 – JoSAA released its businessrules for seat allocation and admission to various academic programs,including admissions to various institutions for the B.Arch. Course.The petitioner participated in the counseling rounds conducted byrespondent No. 3 – JoSAA .4.In the first round itself, as per the choice given by thepetitioner, she was allotted institution of her choice i.e. School ofPlanning and Architecture (SPA) Bhopal for academic program ofB. Arch. (5 year course). This initial seat allotment was intimated on14.06.2025 and the petitioner was asked to submit necessarydocuments and to pay the acceptance fees.5.Subsequently, on 23.06.2025, respondent No. 3 – JoSAA issuedthe impugned communication with the remark :-3/22 WP NO. 7594 OF 2025‘NOT ELIGIBLE as the candidate has neither secured a minimumof SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT aggregate marks in Class XII norfalls within the top TWENTY percentile of her respective Board.’6.The petitioner was aggrieved by the said communication forthe reason that according to her the information bulletin issued byrespondent No. 2 – NTA on the basis of which the JEE examinationwas conducted, did not prescribe such an eligibility criterion and thebusiness rules of respondent No. 3 – JoSAA issued subsequently inMay/June – 2025, for the first time, introduced the aforesaidcriterion. It was further claimed that, without prejudice to theaforesaid stand of the petitioner, she has secured more than 75%marks in Class XII board examination and therefore, she could nothave been held as ineligible. It is in this backdrop that the presentpetition is filed seeking quashing and setting aside of the impugnedcommunication and also a declaration of holding the petitionereligible and a consequent direction that the petitioner be grantedadmission to the course and institution of her choice.7.Since the petition was found to be extremely urgent and thesubsequent rounds of counselling are being undertaken byrespondent No. 3 – JoSAA, this Court took up the petition for urgenthearing and disposal . The respondents appeared through counseland opposed the prayers made in the present petition.4/22
Legal Reasoning
WP NO. 7594 OF 2025be allowed and if not, the petitioner cannot be succeed.17.Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would beappropriate to consider the role of respondent No. 2 – NTA and thatof respondent No. 3 – JoSAA. Respondent No. 2 – NTA has beenestablished as an independent testing agency by respondent No. 1 –the Union of India and it is registered under the Societies RegistrationAct, 1860, for conducting examinations in an efficient, effective andtransparent manner with security of assessment. It is evident thatrespondent No. 2 – NTA does not have any role to play in layingdown the guidelines or the eligibility criteria for admission to varioustechnical courses in IITs, NITs and Government funded technicalinstitutions. The thrust and the objectives of respondent No. 2 – NTAare to assure a valid, reliable, efficient, transparent, fair andinternational level assessment.18.Respondent No. 3 – JoSAA performs the function of seatallocation and admission process through rounds of counsellingfacilitating admission to various academic programs for IITs, NITs andGovernment funded technical institutions. A perusal of the businessrules for joint seat allocation for academic programs issued byrespondent No. 3 – JoSAA lays down, inter alia, eligibility criteria foradmission to the aforesaid institutions. We find that respondent No. 3– JoSAA has the final word on eligibility criteria and other aspects of12/22 WP NO. 7594 OF 2025seat allocation and admission process and that respondent No. 2 –NTA cannot override or substitute the role of respondent No. 3 –JoSAA. It is for this reason that the information bulletin issued byrespondent No. 2 – NTA in October – 2024, indicated that the domainof seat allocation of admission would be ruled by the competentauthority i.e. JoSAA. This becomes further clear from Clause 5.8.1 ofthe information bulletin issued by respondent No. 2 – NTA, whichreads as follows:-“5.8.1 Eligibility for Admission to NITs, IIITs, and CFTIs participatingthrough the Central Seat Allotment Board (CSAB):For the candidates who qualify for admission in the NITs, IITs and suchother CFTIs whose admissions are based on the JEE (Main) ranks in Paper1, they should have secured at least 75% marks in the Class XIIexamination or be in the top 20 percentile in Class XII examinationconducted by respective Boards. For SC/ST candidates, the qualifyingmarks should be 65% in the Class XII examination.The candidate is also required to pass in each of the subjects of Class XII /qualifying examination. The Admission to NITs, IITs and CFTIs will bebased on the announced qualifying Percentile by the individual Institutes.For eligibility regarding details, candidates may refer to the websitehttps://csab.ac.in/.The eligibility criteria decided by the Council of Architecture for admissionto B.Arch. course other than NITs, IITs and CFTIs.For B. Planning, the candidates should have passed the qualifyingexamination with 50% marks in Mathematics and 50% marks in aggregateof the qualifying examination.Subject combinations required in the qualifying examination for admissionto B.E./B.Tech, B.Arch and B.Planning Courses in NITs, IIITs, and otherCFTIs shall be as under.13/22 WP NO. 7594 OF 2025CourseRequired Criteria based on Class XII / Equivalentqualifying ExaminationB.E/B.Tech.Passed qualifying examination with Physics andMathematics as compulsory Subjects along with one of theChemistry / Biotechnology / Biology / Technical Vocationalsubjects.B.Arch.No candidate shall be admitted to an architecture courseunless he has passed an examination at the end of the10+2 scheme of examination with at least 50 percent,aggregate marks in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematicsand also at least 50 percent marks in aggregate of the10+2 level examination/or passed the 10+3 DiplomaExamination with Mathematics as a compulsory subjectwith at least 45 percent marks in aggregate.B.PlanningPassed qualifying examination with MathematicsAs per the Gazette of India dated: 19 July 2023, F. No.CA/498/2023/MSAE (Regulations), the eligibility criteria for B.Arch. hasbeen updated as mentioned above.The Admission Policy, as announced by the Competent Authority of theadmitting institutes shall be followed at the time of admission.The Candidates are advised to satisfy themselves about their Eligibility forAdmission from the respective websites of admitting authorities.”19.A perusal of the above quoted clause shows that it indeedindicates requirements of 75% marks to be obtained in Class XIIexamination or satisfying the requirement of top 20 percentile inClass XII examination. There is some substance in the contentionraised on behalf of the petitioner that since this portion of the clauserefers to paper 1, which is relevant for admission to B.E./B.Tech.courses, it would not be relevant for admission to the B. Arch. course.It is also to be noted that in the table contained in the above quotedclause, insofar as the B. Arch. Course is concerned, it is specified that14/22 WP NO. 7594 OF 2025no candidate would be admitted to the course unless at least 50%aggregate marks are secured in the 10+2 level examination. But, themost crucial portion of the above quoted Clause is at the bottomwherein the candidates are made clearly aware that the admissionpolicy shall be as per the competent authority and the same shall befollowed at the time of admission, further forewarning the candidatesthat they would have to satisfy themselves about their eligibility foradmission. We are of the opinion that this rider at the bottom ofClause 5.8.1 is most crucial and it is in tune with the distinct roles ofrespondent No. 2 – NTA on the one hand and respondent No. 3 –JoSAA on the other.20.It is relevant to note that in Clause 5.8.2 of the informationbulletin issued by respondent No. 2 – NTA, it is stipulated that thecandidates would have to refer to the website of JoSAA for alladmission related procedure/queries. This indicates that the role ofrespondent No. 2 – NTA was limited to holding the examination in afree, fair, efficient and transparent manner, with the process of seatallocation and admission being in the domain of respondent No. 3 –JoSAA. It is also relevant to note that JoSAA was formed in the year2015-2016 on the recommendation and approval of councils of IITs,NITs and Government funded technical institutions like SPA.It was authorized to develop the seat allocation process, formulate15/22 WP NO. 7594 OF 2025business rules including laying down eligibility criteria.The requirement of minimum 75% aggregate marks in Class XIIexamination and top 20 percentile cut-off in Class XII was fixed asper decision taken way back in the year 2016, which is not underchallenge. 21.The said business rules for joint seat allocation published inMay/June 2025 by respondent No. 3 – JoSAA clearly specified inparagraph No. 4 that the eligibility for participating in the process,insofar as the admission to B. Arch. course was concerned, was givenin annexure 2(b). The eligibility criterion specified in annexure 2(b)reads as follows :-•“The candidates should have appeared for the class XII (or equivalent)examination for the first time in 2023 or 2024 or 2025 and must satisfy atleast one of the following two criteria:1.Must have passed class XII (or equivalent) Board examination with aminimum of five subjects and secured at least 75% aggregate marks.The aggregate marks for SC, ST, and PwD candidates should be at least65%.2.Must have passed class XII (or equivalent) Board examination witha minimum of five subjects and be within the category-wise(category as per the central list https://www.ncbc.nic.in,https://socialjustice.gov.in. and https://ncst.nic.in) top 20 percentileof successful candidates in their respective Class XII (or equivalent)board examination.”22.It further specified about scaling up or down as follows:-•“For calculation of the total marks for five subjects, if the marks awardedin a subject is NOT out of 100, then the marks will be scaled (up or down)to 100 so that the total aggregate marks is out of 500.16/22 WP NO. 7594 OF 2025•If a Board awards only letter grades without providing an equivalentpercentage of marks on the grade sheet, the candidate should obtain acertificate from the Board specifying the equivalent marks and submit it atthe time of acceptance of the allocated seat. In case such a certificate is notprovided, the decision taken by the Central Seat Allocation Board (CSAB)2025 will be final.”23.Since the petitioner participated in the seat allocation processfor admission knowing full well about the said eligibility criterion, itcannot be contended that she was unaware about the same.The declaration required to be given by candidates such as thepetitioner while taking part in the process of seat allocation andadmission, specifically records that:-“I have gone through and understood the contents ofbusiness rules prescribed therein. I shall abide by rules andadmission process of JoSAA 2025 as specified in the businessrules”24.The petitioner admittedly gave such declaration by agreeing tothe said terms and conditions and proceeded to participate in theprocess of seat allocation and admission. It is at this stage that therules of the game or the process of seat allocation and admissionwere laid down, to which the petitioner agreed. We are of the opinionthat the petitioner cannot claim that the rules of the game or theprocess stood triggered when the information bulletin was issued byrespondent No. 2 – NTA, particularly because the aforementionedrider at the bottom of the above quoted Clause 5.8.1 of theinformation bulletin notified all candidates like the petitioner that the17/22 WP NO. 7594 OF 2025admission policy would be as specified by JoSAA and it was for thecandidates to satisfy themselves as to whether they were eligible foradmission or not. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the rules ofthe game or the process were changed mid stream by the respondentsto the detriment of the petitioner.25.All candidates identically situated like the petitioner were dealtwith under the same set of procedure and rules and therefore, itcannot be said that the petitioner was either singled out ordiscriminated against during the process of seat allocation andadmission. We find that the distinction sought to be made betweenthe facts dealt with by the Delhi High Court in the case of ‘PrateekSinghal Vs. National Testing Agency and Another’ (Supra) and thepresent case would not assist the petitioner in any manner. It is theclearly defined role of respondent No. 2 – NTA on the one hand andrespondent No. 3 – JoSAA on the other, which are distinct anddifferent, that makes a crucial difference. It cannot be said that theeligibility criterion was changed mid stream to the detriment of thepetitioner.26.Therefore, reliance placed on behalf of respondent No. 3 –JoSAA on the recent order of this Court in the case of ‘Aariv MarwahVs. Union of India and Ors.’ (Supra) is justified, for the reason thatthe petitioner in the present case also willfully and with open eyes18/22 WP NO. 7594 OF 2025participated in the process of seat allocation and admission, knowingfull well the eligibility criterion specified in annexure 2(b) to therules of the business and therefore, she cannot turn around and raisegrievance about the said eligibility criterion. If she had a grievance,she ought to have raised a challenge before participating in thecounselling and seat allocation process.27.This Court is unable to accept the contention of the petitionerthat the respondents have acted in an arbitrary manner, resulting invaluable rights of the petitioner being violated. The admission offeredto the petitioner in terms of the seat allocation communication dated14.06.2025 was provisional and it was subject to verification ofeligibility. It was after the eligibility of the petitioner was verified thatthe impugned communication dated 23.06.2025 was issued. Sincethe principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that rulesof the game were changed mid stream is not accepted by this Court,it is held that the eligibility criterion of obtaining aggregate 75%marks in Class XII examination or being in top 20 percentile doesapply to the case of the petitioner. It is also relevant to note that thisminimum requirement has been consistently applied in the process ofadmission to B.Arch. course in the earlier years also, at least from2016-2017.19/22 WP NO. 7594 OF 202528.As regards the contention that the statutory minimumrequirement as prescribed by the Council of Architecture asper notification dated 11.08.2020 could not have been deviatedfrom, suffice it to say that the aforesaid statutory requirement isthe bare minimum requirement, which if not satisfied cannot leadto admission to the B.Arch. course. Respondent No. 3 - JoSAAbeing foisted with the responsibility of admission to prestigiousinstitutions, including Government funded technical institutions,is well within its rights to prescribe a higher norm. The Delhi HighCourt in the aforesaid judgment of ‘Prateek Singhal Vs. NationalTesting Agency and Another’ (Supra) has taken a similar view,with which this Court concurs.29.As regards arbitrariness on the part of respondent No. 3 –JoSAA in scaling down the marks of the petitioner, this Court is of theopinion that since the rules of business specifying that scaling up ordown of the marks to hundred so that total aggregate marks are outof 500 (five hundred) was notified to all candidates including thepetitioner, it cannot be said that the scaling down itself was arbitrary.The petitioner obtained 174 marks out of 200 in Electronics subjectand it was scaled down by respondent No. 3 – JoSAA to marks out of100 (hundred). The petitioner was unable to demonstrate how thescaling down was arbitrary and this Court would not sit in appeal20/22 WP NO. 7594 OF 2025over the formula of scaling down adopted by respondent No. 3 –JoSAA. In any case, the said respondent scaled down the marks tohalf of those obtained by the petitioner since the total marks werealso reduced to half from 200 to 100. We are unable to agree withthe petitioner that the formula of scaling down was arbitrary. There isnothing to show that such formula of scaling up or down wasimplemented in a haphazard manner by respondent No. 3 – JoSAA orthat the petitioner was singled out for discrimination while doing so.Such scaling up and down has been applied across the board by thesaid respondent and therefore, even the said contention cannot beaccepted.30.Since the petitioner has not been able to demonstratearbitrariness in the conduct of the respondents, we are unable toagree to the relief sought on her behalf. Holding otherwise wouldalso disturb the entire process of seat allocation undertaken byrespondent No. 3 – JoSAA as per its business rules, which have beenapplied uniformly to all the candidates to secure admission in B.Arch.course. No case for discrimination or arbitrariness is made out. In anycase, it is not as if the petitioner will not be able to secure admissionin B.Arch. course at all in this academic year. She can certainly secureadmission in any institute that has decided not to fill up the seats byparticipating in the seat allocation process through JoSAA.21/22
Arguments
WP NO. 7594 OF 20258.Mr. Aditya Sikchi, learned counsel appearing for the petitionersubmitted that the information bulletin issued by respondent No. 2 –NTA for conducting the JEE (Main) examination clearly stipulated theeligibility criterion for B.Arch. course as at least 50% aggregate marksin 10+2 examination. It was submitted that the reference torequirement of candidates securing at least 75% marks in Class XIIexamination or being in top 20 percentile in Class XII examinationwas restricted to paper 1 pertaining to admission to B.E./B.Tech.courses, while B. Arch. course pertained to paper 2A. It wassubmitted that the eligibility criteria specified in the informationbulletin constituted the rules of the game, at the point in time whenthe game was triggered in the form of examination being conductedby NTA. Therefore, eligibility for admission to B.Arch. course stoodfrozen in terms of the eligibility prescribed at Clause 5.8.1 of theinformation bulletin issued by respondent No. 2 – NTA.9.It was submitted that the petitioner was even offeredadmission to her institution of choice on the basis of her score in theentrance examination, clearly indicating that the petitioner wastreated as eligible through the process of counselling, till the stage ofoffering admission to the said institution. But, suddenly, theimpugned communication came to be issued placing reliance oneligibility criteria specified in business rules issued by respondent5/22 WP NO. 7594 OF 2025No. 3 – JoSAA in May/June – 2025, much after the examination wasconducted, thereby indicating that the rules of the game were soughtto be altered midway through the game, which is in the teeth of thesettled position of law. On this basis, it was submitted that theeligibility criterion specified in annexure 2(b) of the business rules ofrespondent No. 3 – JoSAA cannot be applied to the case of thepetitioner as the eligibility for admission to B. Arch. was clearlyspecified in the information bulletin issued by respondent No. 2 –NTA in October – 2024, while calling for applications for the entranceexamination. In this context, reliance was placed on judgment of theSupreme court in the case of ‘Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. Vs. RajasthanHigh Court & Ors. (Judgment and Order dated 07.11.2024) passed inCivil Appeal No. 2634 of 2013.10.It was further submitted that the requirement for admission toB.Arch. Course has been specified by the Council of Architectureestablished under the Architects Act, 1972. It stipulates that thecandidate must have scored at least 50% aggregate marks at the endof the 10+2 examination. This being a statutory stipulation, it wassubmitted that the same would override the business rulesof respondent No. 3 – JoSAA, thereby demonstrating that the actionof the said respondent in holding the petitioner ineligible is clearlyarbitrary, particularly when the information bulletin issued by6/22 WP NO. 7594 OF 2025respondent No. 2 – NTA in Clause 5.8.1 specifically reiteratedthe aforesaid statutory eligibility prescribed by the Councilof Architecture. 11.It was further submitted that, without prejudice to theaforementioned contention, even if the aforesaid criterion ofobtaining 75% aggregate marks in class XII examination was to beapplied, the petitioner satisfied the same, but for the anomalousscaling down of marks by respondent No. 3 – JoSAA while dealingwith the case of the petitioner. It was submitted that one of thesubjects in the Class XII examination of the petitioner i.e. Electronicswas evaluated out of total 200 marks in stead of 100 marks for theother subjects. A proper scaling down of the marks pertaining to thesubject of Electronics would show that the petitioner continued tosatisfy the eligibility criterion of having obtained 75% marks in ClassXII examination. It was submitted that the scaling down wasarbitrarily applied by respondent No. 3 – JoSAA, thereby furtherindicating as to why the impugned action deserves to be set aside sothat the petitioner is able to secure admission on the basis of herperformance in the entrance examination. Learned counsel for thepetitioner submitted that the petition ought to be allowed in theinterest of justice.7/22 WP NO. 7594 OF 202512.On the other hand, Mr. Bhushan Kulkarni, learned counselappearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that respondent No.2 – NTA, being an agency created by respondent No. 1 – the Union ofIndia for conducting aforementioned examination i.e. JEE, isconcerned with the best possible manner in which the examinationcan be conducted with efficiency, effectiveness, equality and securityof assessment. These being the principal goals of NTA, respondentNo. 3 – JoSAA is the body that regulates and manages admission aswell as seat allocation process, including the crucial aspect of layingdown the eligibility criteria. The learned counsel for respondentNos. 1 and 2 placed much emphasis on a rider contained in Clause5.8.1 of the information bulletin issued by respondent No. 2 – NTA,stating clearly that the admission policy as announced by thecompetent authority, meaning JoSAA, shall be followed at the time ofadmission and that the candidates would have to satisfy themselvesabout their eligibility for admission. On this basis, it was submittedthat since respondent No. 2 – NTA is responsible only for properlyconducting the JEE, any grievance pertaining to admission and seatallocation process cannot be raised against the said respondent.As there was no allegation with regard to any deficiency in themanner in which the examination was conducted, it was submittedthat no relief can be claimed against respondent Nos.1 & 2.8/22 WP NO. 7594 OF 202513.Mr. Arjun Mitra a/w. Mr. Krishna P. Rodge , learned counselappearing for respondent No. 3 – JoSAA submitted that thefundamental premise on the basis of which the petitioner has claimedrelief in the present petition is erroneous and mistaken. It wassubmitted that the process of examination for which respondentNo. 2 – NTA is responsible, is distinct from the admission and seatallocation process, which is determined by respondent No. 3 – JoSAA.It was submitted that the business rules for joint seat allocationissued in May/June – 2025 really determined the rules of the gamesi.e. the process of seat allocation. After securing marks in the JEEwhen the petitioner agreed to participate in the seat allocationprocess through counselling, she agreed to the business rules issuedin May/June – 2025 to apply in her case also. Before entering theprocess of counselling, the petitioner gave necessary declarationabout abiding by the decision of respondent No. 3 – JoSAA regardingeligibility for admission. These rules at Clause 4 read with annexure2(b) specifically laid down the criteria of eligibility for admission toB. Arch. Course. It was clearly stipulated that the candidates wouldhave to score minimum 75% aggregate marks in Class XIIexamination or the candidate should be in the top 20 percentile ofthe successful candidates in the Class XII board examination. Thepetitioner participated in the process of seat allocation conducted by9/22 WP NO. 7594 OF 2025respondent No. 3 – JoSAA, being fully aware about this requirement.Hence, it cannot be said that the rules were changed mid stream tothe disadvantage of the petitioner. It was emphasized that the initialseat allocation on 14.06.2025, under the seat allocation process, itselfwas necessarily provisional and when further verification revealedthat the petitioner was ineligible, the impugned communicationdated 23.06.2025 was issued, which cannot be faulted.14.It was submitted that reliance placed on behalf of thepetitioner on the information bulletin issued by respondent No. 2 –NTA in October 2024 cannot be of any consequence. It was furthersubmitted that the criterion specified by Council of Architecture in itsnotification dated 11.08.2020 prescribes the minimum marks that acandidate must have even to aspire for admission to the B.Arch.course. But, respondent No. 3 – JoSAA, as a body established byrespondent No. 1 – the Union of India for admission to technicalinstitutions of higher repute, was clearly within its powers to specifya higher minimum criteria. In this regard, reliance was placed on thejudgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Prateek Singhal Vs.National Testing Agency and Another; 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10873.On this basis, it was submitted that the contentions raised on behalfof the petitioner ought not to be accepted.10/22 WP NO. 7594 OF 202515.As regards the allegation regarding arbitrariness in scalingdown the marks of the petitioner, it was submitted that the process ofscaling down was logical and applied uniformly across the board,with which the petitioner cannot have any grievance. It was furthersubmitted that upon applying the process of scaling down,unfortunately the aggregate marks of the petitioner slipped below75% in Class XII examination and hence she was found to beineligible. Having participated in the process of seat allocation on thebasis of the aforesaid business rules, the petitioner cannot bepermitted to turn around and challenge the same in the present writpetition. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed on arecent order passed by this Court at the principal seat on 27.06.2025in Writ Petition (L) No. 17486 of 2025 (Aariv Marwah Vs. Union ofIndia and Ors.). On this basis, it was submitted that the writ petitiondeserves to be dismissed.16.This Court has considered the rival submissions on the basis ofthe pleadings and documents on record. The controversy revolvesaround the applicability of the eligibility criterion contained inannexure 2(b) of the business rules for joint seat allocation issued byrespondent No. 3 – JoSAA in May/June – 2025. If it is found that thesaid eligibility criterion cannot be applied or that the petitionersatisfies such criteria if it were to be applied, the petition will have to11/22
Decision
WP NO. 7594 OF 2025The aforesaid option is always available to the petitioner andtherefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner cannot begranted relief in the present petition.31.In view of the above, the Writ Petition is DISMISSED. Pendingapplications, if any, also stand disposed of.(Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.)(MANISH PITALE, J.)Jhs/ 22/22