NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.

1. Heard learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Sudhir Nanavati appearing with learned Advocate Mr.Vandan Baxi for the petitioner, learned Advocate Ms.Megha Jani appearing with learned Advocate Mr.Arjun Joshi and learned Advocate Mr.K.V. Shelat for respondent No.1.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner prays for the following prayers :-

“10(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned Rules dated 7.6.2023 passed by respondent No.2 attached as Annexure-A so far as it relates to B.Arch and B.Plan admissions;

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents to implement the impugned Rules dated 7.6.2023 from next academic year and further be pleased to direct the respondents not to implement the impugned Rules dated 7.6.2023 for the students of the current academic year i.e. 2023-24 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to implement Business Rules of the year 2022-23 prescribing minimum qualification of passing the Class-XII or equivalent exams for current years admission process and consider the petitioner’s eligibility accordingly;

(C) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the execution, operation, implementation and enforcement of the impugned Rules dated 7.6.2023 for the conditions to participate in the Joint Seat Allocation Process of the B.Arch and B.Plan courses and stay the admission process thereof; AND/OR

(D) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents, their subordinates, officers, agents etc., to let the petitioner for the B.Arch and B.Plan programs for the academic year 2023-24 in accordance with the Business Rules for the academic year 2022-23;

(E) An ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of sub-paragraph © and/or paragraph (D) above may kindly be granted.”

(F) xxx

(G) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue order or direction quashing and setting aside the Seat Cancellation Letter dated 4.7.2023 issued by respondent No.2 attached as Annexure M and further be pleased to direct respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner as eligible and issue Seat Allocation Letter to the petitioner;

(H) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the execution, operation, implementation and enforcement of the Seat Cancellation Letter dated 4.7.2023 issued by respondent No.2 and direct the respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner as eligible and process the application of the petitioner as valid.”

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had appeared in Joint Entrance Examination (Main) 2023 (hereinafter ‘JEE (Main)’ for short), Session-I, Paper-2 (B.Arch/B.Plan), wherein the petitioner had secured total of 99.7204877 of NTA score and All India Rank (CRL) 183 in Paper-2A (B.Arch) and total of 99.0360763 of NTA Score and All India Rank (CRL) 242 in Paper-2B (B.Planning). The petitioner had thereafter applied through the portal of respondent No.2 for allocation of seat in B.Arch and B.Plan Programmes for academic year 2023-24 and whereas it would appear that the petitioner had been allotted seat in the college of her first choice namely Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur in Round-1 of the seat allocation on 30.6.2023. The petitioner had submitted required documents, including Class-XII Marksheet and had paid requisite fees of the allotted college and whereas vide a communication dated 4.7.2023 issued by respondent No.2, her admission has been cancelled, more particularly for the reason that the candidate – petitioner does not satisfy the criteria of aggregate percentage of marks in Class-XII (or equivalent) for JEE(Main)(B.Arch) and category-wise Top 20 percentile of her Board.

4. At this stage, it would be relevant to state that originally the petitioner had preferred this petition challenging the Business Rules for joint seat allocation, insofar as the Rules provided for a prescription for the candidate to have cleared Class-XII Exams with minimum 75% aggregate or being in the top 20 percentile of successful candidates in their respective Class-XII Exams of the respective stream and Board. In the interregnum, the petitioner had been allotted seat and thereafter the same was cancelled, as noted herein above, prompting the petitioner to amend the petition by challenging the said actions.

4.1. The petitioner has inter alia questioned the decision of respondent No.2 to cancel seat allocation to the petitioner relying upon the Business Rules for Joint Seat Allocation, more particularly the same being at a belated stage, after the petitioner had appeared in her Class-XII Examination.

5. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Nanavati appearing for the petitioner would submit that the action on part of the respondents is questioned primarily and principally on the ground that the criteria of the candidate requiring to score at least 75% aggregate marks in Class-XII (or equivalent) Board Examination or candidate being in the category-wise top 20 percentile of successful candidates in their respective Class-XII (or equivalent) Board Examination had been published by way of the Business Rules after the petitioner had appeared in Class-XII Examination in the month of March 2023 and hence, according to learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Nanavati, such Rules should not have the effect of disqualifying the candidate, more particularly since the same has been published after, what the learned Sr. Advocate terms as ‘changing the rules after the game has started’.

5.1. Learned Sr. Advocate would submit that while the Business Rules for Joint Seat Allocation for Academic Programmes offered by IITs, NITs, IIEST, IIITs and other GFTIs for the Academic Year 2023-24 have been published on 7.6.2023, which contemplate that the candidate, more particularly as relatable to the present issue for admission to B.Arch Programmes at NITs, IIEST, IIITs and other GFTIs should have secured a rank in JEE(Main) 2023 B.Arch Paper for B.Arch Programmes and satisfies the requirement of having at least 75% aggregate marks in Class-XII (or equivalent) Examination or being in the category-wise top 20 percentile of successful candidates in their respective Class-XII Board Examination and whereas according to learned Sr. Advocate, for the previous three years i.e. for year 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23, the requirement in addition to securing a rank in JEE(Main) in B.Arch Paper was of passing Class-XII Examination with Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and two other subjects. Learned Sr. Advocate would submit that the candidate not having any advance notice of the proposed change in the eligibility criteria, the same could not be made applicable for the present year and could have been made applicable only after giving adequate notice to candidates like the petitioner.

5.2. Learned Sr. Advocate would further submit that an Information Bulletin had been published by the National Testing Agency – respondent No.2, which is entrusted with the task of conducting the JEE(Main) 2023 Examination. Learned Sr. Advocate would submit that while the said Information Booklet had been issued in the month of December 2022, yet what would be pertinent to note is that while Chapter 14 (at Ch. 14.1) inter alia states about the condition of the candidate having secured at least 75% marks in Class-XII examination, yet the same was only for admission to NITs, IIITs and GFTIs participating through Central Seat Allocation Board (hereinafter ‘CSAB’). Learned Sr. Advocate would further submit that even a public notice had been issued by respondent No.1 - NTA, whereby it is informed that the NTA is in receipt of numerous representations from stake-holders regarding change in criteria of 75% marks in Class-XII Examination for being eligible for admission to NITs, IIITs, and CFTIs and whereas in the interest of students, it is decided that eligibility condition for admission to NITs, IIITs, and CFTIs participating through CSAB will be to candidates who, in addition to secure a rank in JEE(Main), should have either (a) secured at least 75% marks in Class-XII Examination or (b) be in the top 20 percentile in Class-XII Examination conduction by respective Boards. It is submitted that while there is relaxation for SC/ST candidates, since the Court is not concerned with the said aspect, reference is not made to the relaxation part.

5.3. Learned Sr. Advocate, referring to the Information Bulletin as well as the Public Notice, would submit that the criteria originally announced and later on modified was only for admission to the concerned Institutions through CSAB and whereas a distinction is drawn by the learned Sr. Advocate as regards the CSAB and the Joint Seat Allocation Authority (hereinafter ‘JoSAA’ for short). Learned Sr. Advocate would submit that the Information Bulletin and the Public Notice clearly stating that the eligibility of passing Class-XII with 75% marks is only with regard to candidates seeking admission to NITs, IIITs, GFTIs and other like Institutions through the CSAB and whereas the petitioner is seeking admission only through JoSAA and whereas the JoSAA not having published any such eligibility criteria, such change in criteria would clearly mean that the respondents have attempted to change the Rules, more particularly without informing the candidates, who were under a reasonable impression that the criteria was only of passing the 12th Standard Examination with certain subjects. Learned Sr. Advocate would submit that since there was no advance intimation, act on part of the respondents of notifying a criteria after the petitioner had appeared for the 12th Standard Examination would be an illegal act, may be interfered by this Court and whereas the cancellation order may be set aside by this Court.

5.4. Learned Sr. Advocate has also referred to the screen-shot from the Website of the Central Seat Allocation Board – CSAB Admission and eCounselling Services for Session 2023. Learned Sr. Advocate would submit that as per the news article under the title Introduction in the Web page, it would appear that after the 6th JoSAA Round of seat allocation, if there are unfilled seats of NIT+System, then the same will be filled in by special round of seat allocation organized by CSAB. Learned Sr. Advocate would submit that such a notice by CSAB clearly supports the contention of the petitioner that the Information Bulletin as well as the Public Notice dated 10.1.2023 both issued by NTA were applicable to such students, who would be interested in getting a seat allotted through CSAB and whereas according to learned Sr. Advocate, since JoSAA has not come out with any public notice, therefore, the Business Rules having been published belatedly i.e. after the candidate had appeared in Class-12 Examination, therefore, the same may not be made applicable for the present year i.e. the requirement of having 75% aggregate marks in Class-12 Examination may not be implemented from the present year.

6. This petition is vehemently objected to by learned Advocate Ms.Megha Jani on behalf of respondent No.2. Learned Advocate Ms.Jani would submit that as such a similar issue had come up before the Bombay High Court and whereas vide an order dated 3.5.2023, the Hon’ble Division Bench of Bombay High Court had dismissed the petition, which was in the form of a PIL. Learned Advocate would submit that the said order had been confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, more particularly the Hon’ble Apex Court vide an order dated 5.6.2023 had dismissed Special Leave Petition challenging the order of the Bombay High Court.

6.1. Learned Advocate would further submit that as such the entire petition is misconceived, more particularly since the petition is moved on an assumption that there are two different Bodies, which are conducting separate Examinations of JEE(Main). Learned Advocate would draw the attention of this Court to Rule 3 of the Business Rules, whereby the scope and ambit of the entities concerned has been demarcated. Learned Advocate would submit that as far as the JEE(Advance) is concerned, the same is conducted by the Joint Admission Board JEE (Advance), which is empowered to frame policies and norms for seat allocation to IITs. As far as the JEE(Main) is concerned, the Examination is conducted by JEE Apex Board and the CSAB – 2023 frames policies and norms for seat allocation to NITs, IIITs, CFTIs and other GFTIs. In addition to the same, the CSAB also frames Rules and Policies for seat allocation for CSAB Special vacant seat filling rounds, including CSAB, Supernumerary Counselling etc. The JoSAA consists of representatives from JAB 2023 and CSAB 2023. Learned Advocate would further submit that JoSAA has been set up by Ministry of Education consisting of CSAB and JAB for joint counseling and seating allocation to IITs and NITs plus system from the academic year 2015-16 onwards. It is submitted that seat allocation to NITs plus system is done based on JEE Examination, whereas the same i.e. JEE(Main) is also treated as a qualifying examination for JEE(Advance). Learned Advocate would further submit that JoSAA is constituted to streamline the counseling conducted by CSAB for JEE(Main) and thereafter for eligible candidates through JAB for JEE(Advance). Learned Advocate would further submit that JoSAA is a body for admission to Institutions covered by CSAB and JAB in a single platform and whereas it is misconception to state that the Information Bulletin and the Public Notice were issued only with respect to candidates applying for admission through CSAB.

6.2. Learned Advocate would further submit that on account of Covid-19 Pandemic the Ministry of Human Development Department of Higher Education had relaxed the criteria for admissions to NITs and other GFTIs, inasmuch as the candidate would be required to have a passing certificate in Class-12 Examination and whereas the said relaxation was on account of Covid-19 circumstance and whereas the system of requiring candidates to pass Class-12 Examination with aggregate 75% marks was in vogue since the academic year 2017-18. Learned Advocate would submit that as such there was no new criteria, which had been effectuated by the Business Rules for Joint Seat Allocation for the present academic year and whereas the only aspect with which the petitioner is aggrieved is the fact of the Education Department, Union of India not having granted any relaxation for the present academic year and whereas such a contention is not taken up in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court, confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

6.3. Learned Advocate would further submit that as such, the NTA which has been entrusted with the responsibility of conducting JEE(Main) Examination had issued a public notice informing the schedule and inviting online application for JEE(Main) 2023, Session-1 and whereas the candidates interested were informed to check the Information Bulletin for papers – scheme, timing, eligibility and other information. Learned Advocate would submit that the Information Bulletin, which has been referred to by the learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioner, which has been published by NTA clearly stipulates that the admission to amongst other courses B.Arch Course in NITs, IIITs and CFTIs participating through CSAB will be based on All India Rank subject to the condition that the candidates should have secured at least 75% marks in Class-12 Examination conducted by respective Boards.

6.4. Learned Advocate would further rely upon the public notice issued by NTA dated 10.1.2023, whereby it was informed that there was a review of eligibility criteria and apart from securing rank in JEE (Main) Examination, the candidate should have either secured 75% marks in Class-12 Examination or being in the category-wise top 20 percentile of successful candidates in their respective ClassXII (or equivalent) Board Examination. Learned Advocate would submit that apart from the information as found in the Information Bulletin as well as the Public Notice, no other information was required to be given, more particularly since the candidates were informed well in advance that for admission to the concerned course, apart from the rank to be obtained in JEE(Main), the candidate would also have to qualify the criteria with regard to Class-12 Examination. Learned Advocate would submit that the petitioner being well aware about such requirement, and having not fulfilled the same, would now be precluded from questioning the same under the guise of submitting that the said criteria was applicable only to the seats, which were to be filled in by the CSAB and not to the seats, which would be filled in by JoSAA.

6.5. Learned Advocate would submit that even cursory reading of the Information Bulletin as well as the Public Notice would reveal the misconception of the petitioner more particularly since both the Information Bulletin as well as Public Notice clearly state that the prescription was for eligibility for admission to NITs, IIITs, CFTIs and other like Institutions participating through CSAB. Learned Advocate would submit that JEE(Main) Examination, being conducted through JEE Apex Board and CSAB being empowered to frame the policies and whereas the JoSAA being responsible for Joint Seat Allocation the duties, responsibilities and the powers of each of the respective entities having been specifically prescribed, the petitioner may not be entitled to question the process, merely based on a misconception. Learned Advocate would request this Court to dismiss the writ petition. Learned Advocate would also at this stage rely upon a decision of the High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.8802 of 2023 dated 11.7.2023 in a similar issue.

7. Learned Advocate Mr.K. V. Shelat would adopt submissions of learned Advocate Ms.Jani for respondent No.2.

8. In rejoinder, learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Nanavati would submit that prayer (B) sought for by the petitioner is completely different from the issue in consideration before the High Court of Bombay as well as Delhi High Court. Learned Sr. Advocate would further submit that relaxations granted were through internal communications and whereas the petitioner would not be reasonably aware about the same. Learned Sr. Advocate would further submit that in any case since it is clear that the Information Bulletin as well as the Public Notice issued by NTA were with regard to the CSAB and not with regard to the seats which would be filled in by JoSAA, therefore, such Information Bulletin and the Public Notice would clearly be deemed not to effect the present petitioner. Having regard to such submission the learned Sr. Advocate would reiterate that this Court may allow the petition and grant the prayers as sought for.

9. Heard learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioner as well as the learned Advocates for the respondents, who have not submitted anything else and perused the record.

10. The primary request of the present petition is with regard to directing the respondents to implement the Business Rules published on 7.6.2023 from the next academic year i.e. 2024-25 and whereas the requirement of passing Class-XII Examination with 75% aggregate marks not to be made applicable for the present academic year. The principal contention in support of such a request being that the Information Bulletin and Public Notice issued by NTA was with regard to students intending to take admission through CSAB and whereas JoSAA has not come out with such guidelines/information bulletin/public notice prior to the candidate i.e. the petitioner having appeared in Class-12 Examination.

11. To appreciate the above contention and to find out whether such contention holds any merit, one would require to appreciate the scope and ambit of various entities involved. The Business Rules for the year 2023, more particularly Rule 3 under the title of ‘entities’ clearly specifies the scope and ambit of the entities concerned. Rule 3 being relevant for the present purpose is reproduced herein below:-.

“II. Entities.

3. The Joint Admission Board, JEE (Advanced) 2023 [JAB 2023] conducts JEE (Advanced) 2023, and frames the policies and norms for seat allocation to IITs.

The JEE Apex Board conducts JEE(main) 2023 and the Central Seat Allocation Board [CSAB] 2023 frames the policies and norms for seat allocation to NITs, IIEST, IIITs (Triple-I-Ts) and Other GFTIs. CSAB 2023 also frames the rules and policies for seat allocation for CSAB special vacant seat filling round(s) including CSAB supernumerary counseling and CSAB NEUT counseling. The business rules and schedule for CSAB activities will be announced by CSAB at https://csab.nic.in in due course of time.

Joint Seat Allocation Authority [JoSAA] 2023 consists of representatives from the JAB 2023 and CSAB 2023.

National Informatics Centre (NIC) will extend its technical support and expertise for providing the services of e-Counselling and Admission for the above said activities carried out by JoSAA 2023 and CSAB 2023.

No agency other than JoSAA 2023 is responsible for joint seat allocation to the seats at the IITs/NIT+System. Candidates seeking information/assistance from any agency/agent other than JoSAA 2023 shall be doing so at their own risk and cost. There is only ONE official JoSAA 2023 website, i.e. https://josaa.nic.in/”

12. From a perusal of the said Rule, which appears to be a reiteration of the Rules published herein before, more particularly as verified by this Court interdependently that as far as JEE(Main) Examination is concerned, it is within the ambit of the Central Seat Allocation Board to frame policies and norms for seat allocation to NITs, IIESTs , IIITs, and other GFTIs. It also appears that the CSAB would also frame Rules and policies for seat allocation for CSAB Special Vacant seats filling round. It would also appear that JoSAA is the body consisting of representatives from JAB 2023 with regard to JEE(Advance) and CSAB 2023 with regard to JEE(Main). It would also appear that seat allocation to IITs/NITs+System is the responsibility of JoSAA.

12.1. To understand the extent of the ambit of CSAB, reference could also be made to an Office Memorandum (OM) dated 17.3.2023 by the Ministry of Education, Government of India. From a perusal of the OM, it would appear that JoSAA has been put in place from the academic year 2015-16 consisting of representatives from JAB for admission to IITs and CSAB for admission to NITs. Again what would be relevant is that the OM recognizes the responsibility of CSAB to allot seats in participating Institutions, which would be filled in as per merit list prepared on the basis of JEE(Main) Examination 2023 and whereas CSAB 2023 shall ensure compilation and wide dissemination of information relating to participating institutions. A perusal of the said OM reveals that the responsibility CSAB for the academic year 2023-24 has been entrusted to NIT, Rourkela, Odisha and whereas it also appears that previously the said responsibility had been entrusted to various NITs reference to which is found in the OM.

13. A conjoint reading of the above would clearly establish that the CSAB is not a body having perpetual existence, rather CSAB is formed on yearly basis, more particularly for framing policies and norms for seat allocation of NITs, IIESTs, IIITs and other GFTIs. On the other hand, it would appear that JoSAA is a body consisting of representatives from the JAB as regards JEE(Advance) Examination and CAB for JEE(Main) Examination. It is the responsibility of JoSAA for Joint Seat Allocation for both the IITs/NIT+System. Insofar as the CSAB is concerned, it would appear that the said body also conducts special vacant seats filling rounds, if any seat is vacant after 6 rounds of JoSAA allocation and whereas CSAB is empowered to prepare Business Rules and Schedule for CSAB activities.

14. Having appreciated the duty, functions and responsibility of various entities, we will now consider the Information Bulletin as well as the Public Notice both published by NTA. Chapter-14 of the Information Bulletin under the heading ‘Admission’ states with regard to admission to NITs, IIITs, CFTIs, SFIs, State Engineering Colleges in the participating States and other participating Institutions. Clause 14.1 comes with the heading ‘Eligibility for Admission to NITs, IIITs, CFTIs’ participating through Central Allocation Board’. It would appear that the term ‘participating through CSAB’, which also appears in the public notice, is being emphasized by the petitioner to contend that the eligibility criteria according to the petitioner would only be applicable to candidates, who would be taking admissions through CSAB special vacant seats filling round. In the considered opinion of this Court, such an intent cannot be culled out by any stretch of imagination upon reading the Information Bulletin or the Public Notice. Rather it would appear very unambiguously that the Information Bulletin as well as the Public Notice clearly specify that admission to the course available in Institution participating in the JEE(Main) Examination will be based on All India Rank subject to the candidate having secured 75% marks in Class-XII Examination. The reference to CSAB is only co-relatable to Institutions participating in the JEE(Main) Examination and whereas it would not appear that a student could be having any misconception that the eligibility criteria would only be applicable to candidates, who would be participating in the CSAB special round of seat allocation.

14.1. Again a conjoint reading of the title and the body of Clause 14.1 would clearly reveal the unambiguous meaning as observed herein above. Chapter 14 further makes it clear that the Council of Architecture has decided the eligibility criteria for admission to B.Arch course other than NITs, IIITs and CFTIs, being that the candidates should have passed examination at the end of the qualifying examination with 50% marks in physics, chemistry and mathematics and also 50% marks in aggregate in qualifying examination. Reference to the eligibility criteria decided by the Council of Architecture makes the issue more than clear i.e. for admission to B.Arch course in NIT+System, in additional to having secured All India Rank, the candidate should have secured 75% aggregate marks in Class-XII Examination and whereas for Institutions other than NITs+System, the candidate should have 50% marks in the final of the qualifying examination with 50% in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics and also 50% aggregate. In the considered opinion of this Court, the eligibility criteria of having 75% marks coming out more than clear in the Information Bulletin itself, the argument on the part of the petitioner that the petitioner was under a reasonable impression that the eligibility criteria for admission through JoSAA being not having been published, therefore, the said requirement may not be made applicable to the petitioner cannot be countenanced.

14.2. Furthermore, it would appear that the requirement of a candidate requiring to secure aggregate of 75% marks (65% in SC/ST case) in Class-XII or the candidate is within the category-wise top 20 percentile of successful candidates in their respective Class-XII Examination of respective stream and Board was in existence since the year 2017-18. The said criteria had been relaxed in the year 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 on account of the Covid-19 Pandemic and whereas except for the Government not relaxing the criteria as in the previous three years, no new criteria appear to have been brought in. While the petitioner has preferred this petition claiming that the prescription by NTA vide Information Bulletin and the Public Notice would only be applicable to students appearing through CSAB and not through JoSAA clearly appears to be an after-thought, more particularly since the issue has been settled by the Bombay High Court, more particularly the said decision not being interfered by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Furthermore, it also appears that the petitioner has not challenged the prescription of criteria of 75% marks, rather the candidate has only contended that the same ought not to have been made applicable during the present academic year.

15. It would also be relevant to mention that NTA had clarified about the requirement of securing minimum 75% in Class-XII Examination and whereas the same had been reiterated by way of public advertisement. As noted herein above, the Information Bulletin and the Public Advertisement both clearly specify that for securing the JEE (Main) 2023 Examination in addition to securing an All India Rank the candidate would have to pass Class-XII with 75% minimum. The petitioner, not having secured the requisite marks and obliquely requesting this Court to grant relaxation, more particularly when the issue is settled, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be countenanced.

16. At this stage, this Court also refers to the observations of the Bombay High Court that the JEE is a PAN India Examination, wherein lacs of students participate and whereas after contending of the examination and in the midst of the process, this Court would be loath to consider the case of the present petitioner seeking direction not to consider the marks obtained in Class-12 Examination as criteria, more particularly as noticed herein above, the entire exercise by the candidate clearly appears to be an after-thought.

17. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, the present petition being meritless is rejected.