B.Rama Suresh v. The Chairman, Joint Entrance Examination, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai-600 036 & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 27-07-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.14119 of 2009 andM.P.No.1 of 2009B.Rama Suresh.. Petitioner.Versus1.The Chairman,Joint Entrance Examination,Indian Institute of Technology,Chennai-600 036.2.M.Vinay Lathi3.G.Aravind4.Nithish Mathur.. Respondents.Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing thefirst respondent, The Chairman, Joint Entrance Examination, I.I.T.,Chennai, to allot a seat for the petitioner son, namely,S.GowriShankhar in I.I.T., Madras in preference to his juniors in rank,respondents 2 to 4. For Petitioner : Mr.T.ArulrajFor Respondents : Mr.Vijay Narayanan Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Parthiban (R1)O R D E RHeard Mr.T.Arulraj, the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner and Mr.Vijay Narayanan, the learned Senior Counselappearing on behalf of the first respondent.2. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up forfinal hearing and disposal.3. The petitioner has stated that her son S.Gowri Shankhar hadwritten the Joint Entrance Examination for admission in the IndianInstitute of Technology, Madras, for the academic year 2009-2010. Hewas selected on merits, in the general category. He was called forcounselling, on 14.6.2009, and he was admitted and allotted a seat inIndian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, Uttaranchal. He was asked tojoin the said Institute, on 22.7.2009. 4. The petitioner has further stated that her son S.GowriShankhar was directed to make his option of places upto 108 placesand the courses of his choice. He had given 30 choices at Madras andhe had given 78 choices at other places. Even though his first option https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was for admission at Madras he was allotted a seat in IndianInstitute of Technology, Roorkee, Uttaranchal.5. The petitioner has stated that three candidates, who are shownas respondents 2 to 4, in the present writ petition, belonging to thegeneral category, who have lesser ranks than the petitioner's son,S.Gowri Shankhar, have been allotted seats in Indian Institute ofTechnology, Madras, in the second round of counselling. M.VinayLathi, the second respondent herein, was ranked at 3974, G.Aravind,the third respondent herein, was ranked at 4161 and Nithish Mathur,the fourth respondent herein, was ranked at 4560, in the generalcategory. Since the petitioner's son, S.Gowri Shankhar, was ranked at3708, as per the common merit list, in the general category, heshould have been given admission in one of the first 30 placespreferred by him at Madras. The representation sent by the petitionerfor allotment of a seat at Madras for her son, S.Gowri Shankhar, hadbeen rejected by the first respondent. Non-consideration of therequest of the petitioner would amount to discrimination, as it is inviolation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. Mr.Vijay Narayanan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing onbehalf of the first respondent had submitted, on instructions fromthe first respondent, that there is no dispute that the petitioner'sson, S.Gowri Shankhar, was at 3708, according to the All India Rank,as per the Common Merit list, under the general category. He hadgiven the first 30 choices at Madras, for his admission in the IndianInstitute of Technology, for the academic year 2009-2010. From thedeclaration made by the candidate, on 14.6.2009, it is clear that theoptions exercised by him for the Institutes and Courses are final andthat no change in the options given by him is permissible in future. 7. The candidates are given the counselling brochure, which is aguide to the candidates, qualified in JEE-2009. A successfulcandidate, who has been admitted for a course in the Indian Instituteof Technology, for the academic year 2009-2010, gives an undertaking,which is as follows:"I hereby declare that I have read the CounsellingBrochure of JEE-2009 thoroughly and agree to the proceduresregarding filling up the vacant seats by the individualinstitutes as stated in Section 1.1.3 of the CounsellingBrochure.I declare that in case of any vacancy of seats in theinstitute I join, I will accept the course reallocated tome according to my choices of courses in that institute assubmitted in JEE counselling. I understand that in case I am offered a seat in aninstitute through JEE-2009 or in the second allotment by aninstitute, I will not be considered for allotment of seatsin any other institute. I also understand that hisprocedure may lead to some candidate with a lower rank thanmine getting a course at an institute which may be a higherchoice of mine than my actual allotment." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The petitioner had signed the undertaking, on 14.6.2009, and it hasbeen countersigned by his parent. 8. Section 1.1.3 of the Counselling Brochure, reads as follows"Each of the participating institutes will takemeasures to fill up the seats which fall vacant in therespective institutes. Candidates who are allotted seatsthrough JEE-2009 should register at the respectiveinstitutes on the day of registration as given in the backpage of this Counselling Brochure, failing which the seatallotted to him/her will be treated as unfilled. Suchunfilled seats will be first re-allotted within theinstitute among the candidates who have already registeredin the institute on the basis of their Ranks in JEE-2009(students will "slide up" within the institute to fill upthe vacant seats). The seats which remain vacant in theinstitute after this process will be filled up by theinstitute by selecting candidates from the list ofcandidates who are counseled but not allotted seats in anyof the institutes. Notifications to this effect will bemade in websites of the respective institutes atappropriate time. Please note that all allocations will bebased on the choices given by the candidates at the time ofcounselling. Further, any candidate who is allotted a seatin an institute in the second round will not be eligiblefor any further allotment."9. The learned counsel for the first respondent had furtherstated that the last date for registration at the Indian Institute ofTechnology, Roorkee, Uttaranchal, was 22.7.2009. The petitioner'sson, S.Gowri Shankhar, had reported at the Indian Institute ofTechnology, Roorkee, Uttaranchal, as prescribed in the admissionprocedure and the classes for the courses have begun, from 27.7.2009. 10. The learned Senior Counsel had further submitted that if theseats fall vacant in an Institute the 'sliding rule' is followed,whereby, the candidates would have the choice of sliding up to getslotted in the vacancies arising in the concerned disciplines andprogrammes, in the same Institute. However, no candidate is permittedto get transferred from one Institute to another Institute, even ifvacancies arise in the other Institute. Respondents 2 to 4, eventhough they had been ranked lower than the petitioner's son, S.GowriShankhar, they were allotted the seat at Indian Institute ofTechnology, Madras, based on their ranking and their choice ofInstitute and Courses, in the second counselling. As there is nodiscrimination in the allotment of seats for respondents 2 to 4 atIndian Institute of Technology, Madras, the writ petition is devoidof merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 11. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselappearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Senior Counselappearing on behalf of the first respondent, and on a perusal of therecords available, this Court is of the considered view that thepetitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for granting thereliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writpetition. Since the procedures followed by the first respondent, in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the allotment of seats and institutes, is based on the establishedprocedure for admissions of candidates in the various IndianInstitute of Technology, as per the Counselling Brochure foradmissions, for the academic year 2009-2010, for the candidatesqualified in JEE-2009, the contentions raised by the petitionercannot be countenanced. There is no discrimination in the admissionof the respondents 2 to 4 in the Indian Institute of Technology atMadras, as claimed by the petitioner. Further, the undertaking signedby the candidate, as well as by his parent, on 14.6.2009, makes itclear that they had accepted the procedures followed by the firstrespondent, for the admission of candidates in the Indian Instituteof Technology, for the academic year 2009-2010. The petitioner hasnot shown that the procedures followed by the first respondent foradmission of candidates is arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatoryin nature. In such circumstances, the writ petition is devoid ofmerits. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarcshToThe Chairman,Joint Entrance Examination,Indian Institute of Technology,Chennai-600 036.1 cc To Mr.R.Parthiban, Advocate, SR.32581Writ Petition No.14119 of 2009RJ(CO)SRA(20/08/2009)