Najiketh Suresh Babu v Central Seat Allocation Board (JEE Main-2013) and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** **TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/5TH BHADRA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 19219 of 2013 (B)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): --------------------------** **NAJIKETH SURESH BABU, S/O.SURESH BABU P.T., PADOOR HOUSE, P.O.PADOOR, THRISSUR-680 524, (D.O.B. 23-10-1995, MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER, JAYALAKSHMI T.A., W/O.SURESHBABU, PADOOR HOUSE, P.O.PADOOR, THRISSUR-680 524.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN SRI.HANSON.P.MATHEW** **RESPONDENT(S):** - **----------------------------** **1. CENTRAL SEAT ALLOCATION BOARD (JEE (MAIN-2013), REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, (MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA), NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ROORKELA, ODISHA, PIN-769 008.** ## **2. CHAIRPERSON UG-ADMISSIONS,** ## **NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT-673 601.** **3. THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT-673 601.** **R1 BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **WP(C).No. 19219 of 2013 (B)** ## **-----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:** **----------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ADMIT CARD FOR JOINT ENTRANCE EXAMINATION (JEE MAIN 2013).** - **EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE MARKLIST OF THE PETITIONER OF THE SENIOR SCHOOL CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION 2013.** - **EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE JEE (MAIN 2013) MARK LIST OF THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL SEAT ALLOTMENT LETTER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE DATA SHEET FOR B.TECH CANDIDATES ADMITTED TO NITC 2013-14.** - **EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE SELECT OPTION FOR SPOT ROUND PARTICIPATION DT.27-7-2013.** - **EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VELLUR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DT.29-7-2013.** - **EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT CLAUSES OF THE INFORMATION BROCHURES OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT.30-7-2013 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS.** **EXHIBIT P10: ORIGINAL COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER ON 26/07/2013 AND THE ENDORSEMENT MADE IN IT BY THE VIT AUTHORITIES.** ## **EXHIBIT P11: COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT.** **EXHIBIT P12: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE INFORMATION BROCHURE WHICH SAYS ABOUT THE FEE TO BE REMITTED.** **..2/-** **Kss** **...2....** ## **WPC.NO.19219/2013 (B)** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:** **-------------------------------------------** **R1(A): COPY OF THE TABLE.** **R1(B): COPY OF THE MAIL DTD. 31ST JULY, 2013.** **R2(A): COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE PROSPECTUS INDICATING ARTICLE 2.3.** **R2(B): COPY OF THE REPORTING FORM.** - **R2(C): COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ADMISSION LETTER ISSUED TO ONE OF THE CANDIDATE WHO HAVE COMPLETED ALL THE PROCESS.** **R2(D): COPY OF THE LAYOUT OF THE SEATING ARRANGEMENT.** - **R2(E): COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT INDICATING ARTICLE 3.4 IN THE INFORMATION BROCHURE.** **R2(F): COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DATES IN THE PROSPECTUS.** **R2(G): COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHEDIN THE WEBSITE OF THIS RESPONDENT.** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(c) No. 19219 OF 2013** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27[th] day of August, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** The issue involved in this case is revolving round admission to B.Tech in the third respondent institution, which is stated as one of the prestigious institutions in the State in the relevant field. 2. The petitioner completed his 'Plus Two' and came out in flying colours with 95% marks. But he could not secure admission in the first and second rounds of allotment conducted by the first respondent pursuant to the JEE (Main) examination 2013. The petitioner secured All India rank of 18360, while the State rank is 849, as disclosed from Ext.P3. Since the petitioner could not secure any allotment of his choice in the first two rounds as mentioned above, he joined the Vellur Institute of Technology in Tamil Nadu for 'Mechanical Engineering', as allotted by the first respondent and was pursuing studies as above. 3. While so, the petitioner came to know that the petitioner W.P.(C)No.19219/2013 2 has been given provisional allotment to 'Electrical and Electronics Engineering' in the third respondent institution, as borne by Ext.P4. This contains a clear stipulation that the newly allotted candidates in the third round are to report at any of the reporting centres during July 25 – July 27, 2013, failing which the allotted seat will be cancelled and that the candidate will not be eligible for the 'spot round' and 'extra spot round' of allotment. 4. Pursuant to the provisional allotment, the petitioner made an application before the institution of study ie. Velloor Institute of Technology, on 26.07.2013, to return the original documents, to take his chance to get admission in the third respondent institution. Based on the said submission, the originals were returned on the same day, as borne by Ext.P10 proceedings, (produced along with I.A.No.11055/2013). The petitioner also drew a demand draft for a total sum of Rs. 41,000/- ( Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 1,000/- as specified), a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P11 along with I.A.No.11244/2013. With all the necessary documents, the petitioner reported before the third respondent along with his mother on W.P.(C)No.19219/2013 3 27.07.2013. According to the petitioner, his credentials were verified and Ext.P6 was issued from the computer maintained by the third respondent, whereby the provisional admission was confirmed and the petitioner was set at liberty to pursue further upgradation 'within the institution'. The factual position of reporting before the third respondent on '27.07.2013 at 11.13 a.m'. is discernible from Ext.P6. 5. The petitioner contends that he was informed, that the result of the spot allotment and extra spot round would be available only later, and hence was asked to appear in the College on 30.07.2013 or 1.8.2013 for admission. It was accordingly, that the petitioner returned to the institution at Vellur and made an application for getting the 'TC' on 29.07.2013, which was issued on the same day, as borne by Ext.P7. With the said document, the petitioner turned up again before the third respondent on 30.07.2013 and waited there till afternoon, and his turn came up only by 3 0' clock, when the third respondent informed the petitioner that he had 'not appeared' on 27.07.2013 and hence his candidature was cancelled. Immediately, the petitioner tried to explain the position and also preferred Ext.P9 representation before the first W.P.(C)No.19219/2013 4 respondent, through the authorities of the third respondent. But the first respondent was not in a position to grant any relief, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3, asserting that the petitioner had not turned up before the third respondent on 27.07.2013 and that he had not completed the admission procedure. It is stated that, Ext.P5 is the creation of the petitioner himself, who had logged into the website giving the factual data available with him. The said respondents also contend that 'Ext.P6' was never issued from the third respondent's web site, and that the same has been procured from the web site of the first respondent. It is stated that a computer was placed in the 'hall', with a printer for convenience of the students, who came there for admission and that the petitioner might have taken Ext.P6 print out from the said computer. It is asserted with reference to 'Article 2.3' of Information Brochure released by the first respondent, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.R2(a), to contend that the petitioner has not completed the admission formalities. Reference is also made to Ext.R2(b), which W.P.(C)No.19219/2013 5 is a specimen 'reporting form' to be filled up by the candidate, containing various particulars. Only after verification of the certificates and such other traits, that “provisional admission” letter will be given to the students, a specimen of which has been produced as Ext.R2(c), which should bear the signature of the candidate and the counter signature of the authorities of the third respondent. 7. It is pointed out from the part of the third respondent that, the petitioner has not produced any material to show that he had filed any reporting form as Ext.R2(b); nor as to the issuance of any “provisional admission letter” like Ext.R2(c). Paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit says that, even though what has happened to the petitioner is quite unfortunate, the third respondent institution is not in a position to extend any helping hand. The contents of paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 are relevant, which are extracted below : _“11. It is humbly submitted that though it is quite unfortunate what has happened to this petitioner, this respondent institution at this juncture cannot help the petitioner in any manner in regard to admission to this_ W.P.(C)No.19219/2013 6 _respondent institution since the allotment process has been completed by the 1[st] respondent. If at all this court directs the 1[st] respondent to admit the petitioner it will have a large ramification. The whole process of admission is done by the 1[st] respondent. It is country wide and centralized allotment. It is done on the basis of the rank. This respondent institution acting as a reporting centre during the above process has not permitted anybody to report without original documents. Handful of students have returned since they could not comply with article 3.4 of the prospectus. It is pertinent to point out that during all rounds of reporting in this respondent institution around 800 students have appeared. Till today other than the petitioner no other candidate have raised their little finger either questioning the mode of operation or procedure under article 3.4._ _12. It is true that the petitioner along with his_ _parents had come to this respondent institution on 30[th] July,2013. At that juncture they had submitted Exhibit P9_ W.P.(C)No.19219/2013 7 _representation to this respondent institution which acted as a reporting centre. The whole aspect was narrated by the petitioner and subsequently he was made to understand as to why admission cannot be granted to him. The petitioner has not reported during the specified period. However, this respondent was surprised to receive the notice in the above writ petition. More over, after filing the said writ petition on 1.08.2013 the petitioner again approached this respondent institution seeking for a Provisional Admission letter which cannot be generated by any reporting centre subsequent to 27[th] July, 2013. The above aspect is also brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court._ 13. _This Hon'ble Court after hearing the matter on 1.8.2013 had directed that if any vacant seat is available in B.Tech(EEE) the same shall be kept for abeyance till further orders are obtained from this Hon'ble Court. In the above aspect it is respectfully submitted that no seats are vacant and the seats are all been alloted to the respective candidates by the 1[st] respondent.”_ W.P.(C)No.19219/2013 8 8. The first respondent has filed a separate counter affidavit referring to the sequence of events and the relevant facts and figures. By virtue of 'Article 3.4' of CSAB Information Brochure, the steps for reporting are in the sequence of : _a) document verification b) Verification of the credentials c) Payment of fee d) Issuing of provisional admission letter to the candidate by Reporting Centre official._ It is stated that, only after steps (a) to (c) are completed, the last step ie. the 'provisional admission letter' will be issued by the Reporting Centre official, which has not happened in the instant case. Reference is also made to the responsibility cast upon the persons like the petitioner, as put forth in paragraphs 7, 9 and 10, which hence are extracted below : _“ 7. It is humbly submitted that Article 3.4.4 provides that_ _**“ This provisional admission letter shall indicate the personal details of the candidate,details of the Institute and branch to**_ W.P.(C)No.19219/2013 9 _**which the candidate has been provisionally admitted, and details of initial fee payment. The candidate must check all the entries in the provisional admission letter, sign it and preserve it**_ _**for further reference.”** The above article clearly states that the steps to be followed by the candidate before he completes the reporting at the reporting centre and obtains the provisional admission letter. Missing of any steps ( steps a to d) as mentioned above at reporting centre will not generate the provisional admission letter and the candidate will be considered as “ Not-reported” and his seat allotment will be cancelled by the computer. Thus, physical reporting at reporting centre is not sufficient to complete the reporting process. Further the petitioner claims that he has submitted the option for spot round. This cannot be considered as an evidence for reporting. The candidate can register even without giving any option for spot round. This option was asked from the candidate only to know if he wants further up-gradation in_ _**spot round or not** . This option was accessible from any computer with an Internet connection and not necessarily from the reporting centre computer only. Further online data sheet of NIT, Calicut is also not an indication of_ W.P.(C)No.19219/2013 10 _completing reporting. The screen can be obtained and filled by the candidate without reporting, by accessing NIT Calicut website_ _**http://dss.nitc.ac.in/MtechApp/UGDASA/DataEntry .aspx.** Hence, the contention of the petitioner that he had reported at the reporting centre and option was given for spot round cannot be concluded that he has been given admission in the said college. There are two independent actions to be undertaken by the candidates and giving option for spot round is not an indication of reporting._ _9. The petitioner further contends that since on 27.07.2013 he opted for higher option within the Institute in the spot round and hence, it is evident that he had reported and that as per CSAB information brochure only a reported candidate can give option for spot round are not true and hence denied. Any allotted candidate or reported candidate can also give the option for spot round by logging in the CSAB website using his login and password. Thus, it is evidently clear that the petitioner did not complete the reporting at the reporting centre and did not obtain the provisional admission letter. Hence, his seat was cancelled for not doing online reporting in the CSAB reporting_ W.P.(C)No.19219/2013 11 _module and therefore, his name did not appear in the final admission list. It is humbly submitted that more than 542 candidates have reported for all the three rounds altogether. Therefore, it is evident that the 2[nd] respondent is well aware of the reporting procedure and no reporting problem occurred for any candidate who reported properly._ _10. In the additional affidavit preferred by the petitioner's mother it was mentioned that the petitioner had complained to this respondent regarding the cancellation of admission by the 2[nd] respondent. The petitioner mailed to this respondent on 31[st] July, 2013 and a letter was also attached to the same dated 30.07.2013. A true copy of the mail dated 31[st] July, 2013 is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R1(b). Ext.P9 was attached along with Ext.R1(b). In Ext.P9 the petitioner complained that he came to NIT, Calicut for reporting and gave an option for up-gradation in spot round. He further states that when he came on 30.07.2013 he was informed that his admission was cancelled. When the said aspect was brought to the notice of this respondent it was presumed that if the petitioner came to NIT, Calicut for reporting, he must have obtained provisional admission letter from NIT,_ W.P.(C)No.19219/2013 12 _Calicut. In order to ascertain this fact, this respondent asked him to submit a copy of the provisional admission letter issued by Reporting Centre at NIT, Calicut. In respect to the above the petitioner informed by his mail that he will be sending the signed allotment letter and did not write signed_ _**provisional admission letter** . It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner did not complete the reporting at NIT, Calicut for getting provisional admission letter and therefore, did not have the provisional admission letter with him. Accordingly, his seat was cancelled by the computer for not reporting online in the CSAB online reporting module.”_ 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the presence of the petitioner in the third respondent Institution on the relevant date i.e. on 27.07.2013 has been established, as discernible from the materials produced before this Court. The learned counsel also submits that the course and events have been described in detail, including the circumstance under which the petitioner obtained the originals of the documents from the Vellur Institute of Technology, taking of the Demand Draft, returning to the Vellur Institute at Tamil W.P.(C)No.19219/2013 13 Nadu after reporting before the 3[rd] respondent on 27/7/2013, getting back the TC, reporting on the subsequent date before the 3[rd] respondent etc., which were pursued by the petitioner with the sole intent to get admission to the third respondent institution. This being the position, it is rather puerile to think that the petitioner was not conscious of the steps to be pursued for getting admission and as such, no reliance can be placed on the stand taken by the respondents . If at all there is any omission on the part of the officials, that cannot stand in the way of the petitioner who is a meritorious candidate, more so when persons with lesser merits have already been given admission in the third respondent institution. 10. The learned standing counsel for the respondents submits that there is no fault or lapse on the part of the respondents and if the petitioner has left the third respondent institution on 27.07.2013 before completion of the admission procedure, none other than the petitioner can be blamed for such course and events. The learned counsel also points out that the admission procedure has already been completed and nobody else has been admitted after the interim order passed by W.P.(C)No.19219/2013 14 this Court on 1.8.2013. ## 11. The Interim order dated 01/08/2013 reads as follows : “ _Coming to the question of interim relief, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted provisional admission in the 3[rd] round, as per Ext.P4, clearly stipulating that, the newly selected candidates obtained admission in the 3[rd] round shall report at any Reporting Centre (RC) during July 25-July 27, 2013, failing which, the seat will be cancelled._ _2. The petitioner was studying for B.Tech (Mechanical Engineering) in the Velloor Institute and he obtained Ext.P7 Transfer Certificate on 29.07.2013. It is the case of the petitioner that, he appeared before the authority, satisfied the requisite fees as well, as borne by Ext.P6 and appearance is discernible from the entry in Ext.P6 itself, referring to the date and time of reporting and also the option exercised by the petitioner “ Option II: I want to participate in the Spot Round, but only within MY PRESENT ALLOTTED INSTITUTE”. But the petitioner was given to understand that formal admission_ W.P.(C)No.19219/2013 15 _could be effected only on 30[ieth] , after completing Spot Round and when the petitioner appeared before the 3[rd] respondent, entry was denied, stating that, he had not reported on 27.07.2013 and hence cannot be considered._ _3. Sri.Millu Dandapani appearing for respondents 2 and 3 is required to get instructions as to how and why the petitioner came to be eliminated and whether there is any basis for the claim._ _4. If any vacant seat is available in B.Tech (EE), filling up of the same shall be kept in abeyance till further orders are obtained from this Court._ _Post on 02/08/2013.”_ 12. After analysing the rival contentions, this Court finds that there is an 'oath against oath'. Who is to be believed or who is to be disbelieved, is the question before this Court. In criminal jurisprudence, disputes can be easily resolved with reference to the enabling provision, extending benefit of doubt to the accused. The decision rendered by the Apex Court in _**Asha v. PT.B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences and Others**_ ( 2012 (7) Supreme Court W.P.(C)No.19219/2013 16 Cases 389) comes to the rescue to a good extent; wherein it has been held that, there cannot be any compromise with merit which is of paramount importance and that the benefit of doubt shall be given to the meritorious student concerned in such circumstances. 13. The learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent submits that the decision rendered in the said case stands on a different footing , as a 'positive finding' has been rendered therein as to the 'lapse' on the part of the respondent University, which is not the position in the present case. The observations made by the Apex Court in paragraphs 14, 19 and 20 are relevant, which are extracted below: _“14. We may notice that in the writ petition before the High Court the appellant had specifically averred that she was present in the second counseling at the time of attendance and even subsequent thereto. However, despite such presence, her name and roll number were not declared by the respondents for the purpose of admission to the MBBS course. However, the list of successful candidates revealed that candidates of merit lower to her had been admitted to the MBBS course. According to her, she instantly raised her claim and even submitted a representation to the respondents but to no avail._ W.P.(C)No.19219/2013 17 _19. The appellant filed the writ petition before the High Court without any undue delay and on 4th November, 2011, the judgment by the court was passed in her favour.The cumulative effect of the above factual matrix, the pleadings of the parties and the expeditious manner in which the appellant had taken action before the authorities and then before the court and pursued her remedies, persuade the Court to believe that the case of the appellant is truthful. The cases of the present kind are not required to be tested by us on the touchstone of stringent principles of burden of proof applicable to criminal jurisprudence. As already mentioned, it was the obligation of the respondents to specifically deny the averments made by the appellant and to produce the relevant records to show that the stand taken by them is worthy of credence. Having failed to do so, they cannot shift the burden upon the appellant and expect this Court to believe that a student of the same college, would disappear at the relevant time of counseling after having marked her presence at the counseling._ _20. It is not necessary for the appellant to plead and prove mala fides, misconduct or favouritism and nepotism on the part of the parties concerned. Failure to do the same could be an error, intentional or otherwise, but in either event, we see no reason why the appellant should be made to suffer despite being a candidate of higher merit.”_ 14. It is true that there is some observation in paragraph 17, as to the circumstances which led to the said verdict. Even if it is W.P.(C)No.19219/2013 18 presumed that there is no fault on the part of the respondents herein and there is some omission on the part of the petitioner in producing the report card/provisional admission letter in order to substantiate the completion of admission procedure, the sequence of events narrated shows that right from day one after the relevant notification in the website, the petitioner was pursuing necessary proceedings to obtain the originals of the certificates; drawing a Demand Draft for satisfying the requisite fees; appearing before the 3[rd] respondent on 27/7/2013 leading to Ext.P6 and such other steps as described herein before. However, it is also to be seen that the third respondent had no other alternative, but to proceed with further steps to complete the admission procedure on the basis of the materials available as on the relevant date. There is no specific plea of any malafides or maladministration on the part of the respondents; more so in view of the possible lapse on the part of the petitioner in filling up the report card, procuring provisional admission letter etc. on the date of appearance, i.e., 27.07.2013. 15. In view of the fact that the admission procedure has already W.P.(C)No.19219/2013 19 been completed as stated by the learned Counsel for the third respondent, no positive direction can be given by this Court to grant admission to the petitioner in any of the seats which have already been filled up, more so, when the concerned student/s who got admission is not there in the party array. In view of the interim order passed by this Court, if any further vacancy is left out or resulted after the said interim order, this Court finds that, in view of the better credentials of the petitioner, being a meritorious candidate and the course ordered to be pursued by the 'Apex Court' as per the decision cited supra, the petitioner shall be accommodated by the respondents against such vacancy, notwithstanding the closure of Admissions. Necessary allotment shall be made by the 1[st] respondent/competent authority to accommodate the petitioner in such vacancy because of non-joining of any candidate allotted to the third respondent Institution. The writ petition is disposed of. ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** sv W.P.(C)No.19219/2013 20 sv.