HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR AND HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.441 OF 2011 Dt: 22.12.2011 Between N.Ravali …Appellant AND The Government of India, Ministry of Human Sources, New Delhi, Rep. by its Secretary and another. …Respondents HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR AND HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.441 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (PER HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR) The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 30.04.2011 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.17774 of 2010. 2. The appellant is presently a student in the Indian School of Mines (ISM), Dhanbad. She had participated in the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) for admission to various Indian Institutes of Technology. One of the participating institutions in the JEE is the ISM, Dhanbad. In the JEE the appellant was ranked 6684. At the time of counselling in terms of the admission procedure, she was given admission to the 5-Year Integrated M.Sc. Chemistry Course in ISM, Dhanbad. 3. It appears that the respondents had made an error in the admission process, particularly in respect of those who had participated in the Bachelor of Architecture and Bachelor of Designs Courses. When that error was noticed, the concerned authorities convened an emergency meeting on 03.07.2010 and decided to take corrective measures. 4. As a result of the corrective measures, it was found that 52 candidates were not entitled to admission in any of the IITs including ISM, Dhanbad and several others (including the appellant) were affected. 5. However, since all these candidates had already been granted admission and perhaps with a view to save their career it was decided that they would automatically be considered for a second allotment based on the choice given by them during the counselling process. 6. When the second counselling process was initiated, the appellant got admission into the 5-Year Integrated M.Sc. Maths Course in ISM, Dhanbad. 7. Not being satisfied with this and with an intention to have the course as well as her institution changed, the appellant filed a writ petition which was partly allowed by the order under appeal. 8. The learned single Judge held that since the first allotment/counselling given to the appellant in the 5-Year Integrated M.Sc. Chemistry Course was cancelled, not due to her fault but due to the fault of the respondents, that counselling process cannot be counted for the purposes of the admission process. Accordingly, the learned single Judge took the view that when the second allotment/counselling process took place and the appellant got admission into the 5-Year Integrated M.Sc. Maths Course at ISM, Dhanbad, that second process should be taken as the first counselling. On this basis, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that since the appellant was entitled to two sessions of counselling and she had only undertaken one session of counselling, she ought to be given another round of counselling. The learned single Judge also made a note of the fact that a large number of seats are lying vacant at ISM, Dhanbad. Taking all these factors into consideration, it was directed that the appellant be given a second round of counselling. 9. The respondents have implemented the Judgment of the learned single Judge and as a result thereof, she has now been given B.Tech (Electrical) course but in the same institution, i.e., ISM, Dhanbad. 10. According to the appellant, if the first round of counselling (in which an error was made by the respondents) is taken out of consideration, the appellant has been given only one round of counselling. If she is now given a second round of counselling, she might perhaps get admission in some other institution other than ISM, Dhanbad and in a different course. This argument is based on the premise that the direction of the learned single Judge is limited only to the vacancies available in ISM, Dhanbad, and therefore the second round of counselling ordered by the learned single Judge was in a sense partially effective. 11. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that when the allotment process was erroneous ab initio, the first counselling cannot be taken into consideration, being still-born. Therefore, even though the appellant may have got admission into the 5-Year Integrated M.Sc. Chemistry Course in the first round of counselling, that counselling or allotment would have to be taken out of consideration. 12. We are not in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. The fact remains that counselling did take place (though erroneous) and it did result in the appellant getting admission in the 5-Year Integrated M.Sc. Chemistry Course at ISM, Dhanbad. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the counselling was still-born. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that after the error was discovered by the respondents and corrective measures taken, the appellant obtained admission into the 5-Year Integrated M.Sc. Maths Course in ISM, Dhanbad. 14. We agree with learned counsel for the respondents that the appellant did undertake the first round of counselling. Unfortunately, however, the result of the first round of counselling was erroneous and consequently the appellant got admission into the 5-Year Integrated M.Sc. Chemistry Course. When the mistake committed by the respondents was realized, a second round of counselling took place and in that second round she got admission into the 5-Year Integrated M.Sc. Maths Course. Now, as a result of the order passed by the learned single Judge, the appellant has in fact got a third round of counselling but limited to the change in course but not the institution. 15. In our opinion, since the appellant had already undertaken two rounds of counselling, which is admittedly the maximum available, she cannot claim a further round of counselling even though the first round of counselling resulted in an erroneous allocation of course or institution for the appellant. On the facts of this case, we cannot hold that the first round of counselling was still-born or void ab initio. It was factually a counselling undertaken not only in respect of the appellant but in respect of all other affected candidates, but unfortunately the result was not correct because of an error having been committed by the respondents. 16. We are also concerned about the fact that if the prayer of the appellant is granted, it will result in setting the clock back and re- opening the admissions of a large number of students. This would not, in our opinion, be in the academic or public interest. 17. In view of the above, we find no merit in this writ appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous application is also dismissed. ( MADAN B.LOKUR, CJ ) ( SANJAY KUMAR, J ) Dt: 22.12.2011 BNR/VGSR