The Delhi High Court observed students can't be denied admission to premier institutions due to a clash between CBSE improvement exam dates and JoSAA counselling deadlines, stating the opportunity to improve scores must be "meaningful" and not "illusionary".
Clashing Timelines Can't Deny Admission: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has observed that students cannot be deprived of admission to premier educational institutions merely because the CBSE compartment/improvement examination schedule does not align with the Joint Seat Allocation Authority (JoSAA) counselling timeline.
The Court said that where the admission framework itself provides an opportunity for candidates to improve their Class XII results, that opportunity must be "meaningful" and not rendered ineffective by conflicting deadlines.
Opportunity to Improve Must Be 'Meaningful'
Justice Jasmeet Singh made the observations while hearing two petitions filed by students whose admissions were cancelled after they secured marginally less than the minimum 65% marks required in their Class XII examinations. Both students have opted to appear in the CBSE compartment/improvement examination scheduled for July 28 to improve their scores.
The Court noted that the JoSAA Business Rules provide for consideration of candidates whose Class XII results are revised after re-evaluation or improvement. However, it observed that the last date fixed by JoSAA for submission of revised marks was July 15, 2026, whereas the CBSE improvement examination itself is scheduled for July 28, 2026. In such a situation, the Court said, students taking the improvement examination would automatically miss the deadline even before appearing in the examination, making the provision meaningless.
"If that be so, I am of the view that Rule 72B of the JoSAA 2026 Business Rules becomes illusionary and moonshine without any meaningful interpretation," the Court observed.
The Court further observed that once the authorities themselves had provided students, including those belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Persons with Disabilities, an opportunity to improve their scores and become eligible, that opportunity must be real and effective. It said that if the July 15 deadline is treated as absolute, every student appearing in the CBSE compartment/improvement examination would automatically become ineligible. Justice Singh also noted that both petitioners had secured seats in prestigious institutions through their hard work and merit. The Court said they should not be prejudiced merely because the CBSE examination schedule and the admission schedule fixed by the respondent institutions were not in sync. "It is common knowledge that children study for hours and months to get admissions in prestigious institutions, and their efforts cannot be ignored merely because CBSE and respondent institutions are not in sync with each other," the Court observed while holding that the petitioners had established a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in their favour.
JoSAA Argues Timelines are Binding
During the hearing, senior counsel appearing for JoSAA submitted that the counselling process had concluded on July 16, 2026 and all available seats had already been allotted. It was argued that the admission timelines prescribed under the Business Rules were binding and that courts should not issue directions contrary to the admission procedure.
Reliance was also placed on previous judgments of the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court to contend that admissions cannot be granted by relaxing prescribed rules.
Supernumerary Seats a Potential Solution, Court Notes
The High Court, however, distinguished those decisions. It held that the petitioners were not seeking any relaxation of the eligibility criteria or any direction contrary to the JoSAA Business Rules. Rather, they were seeking implementation of the existing provisions that specifically contemplate consideration of candidates after revision of their Class XII results and also permit creation of a supernumerary seat wherever necessary.
The Court further observed that if the petitioners successfully clear their compartment/improvement examination, the Business Rules themselves provide for creation of a supernumerary seat in the same programme to which they had originally been allotted. It said the petitioners' concerns are adequately addressed within the existing framework.
The Petitioners
One of the petitions was filed by Daksh Singhal, an ST category candidate who secured an ST rank of 144 in JEE (Advanced) 2026 and was provisionally allotted a B.Tech (Mechanical Engineering) seat at IIT Delhi. His admission was cancelled after he secured 64.2% marks in Class XII against the prescribed 65% requirement.
The second petition was filed by Paras Batra, a candidate with benchmark disability, who had been allotted a B.Arch seat at the School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi under the PwD category. His admission was cancelled after he secured 64.8% marks, slightly below the required 65% threshold.
Court Issues Notice, Next Hearing in August
The High Court has issued notice in both petitions and sought replies from the respondents. The matters have been listed for further hearing on August 21, 2026. The Court also granted liberty to the petitioners to seek an early hearing if the CBSE declares the compartment/improvement examination results before the next date of hearing. (ANI)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)