Case: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KHARAGPUR &amp; ORS Vs. SOUTRIK SARANGI &amp; ORS

was conducted on 07.11.2020. Soutrik had, in the meanwhile been offered B.S. (Mathematics) course in the IIT Bombay through a separate admission process based on his performance in the Mathematics Olympiad. This was disclosed by him in the writ petition filed before the High Court. He seems to have accepted that offer of admission. He however, did not withdraw the admission granted earlier as of the last date provided for it. It appears that he wrote to the ITT on 08.11.2020 alleging that he got an offer letter from the IIT Bombay for lateral entry to BS (Mathematics) after the online date for withdrawal had lapsed, demanding refund of his seat acceptance fee. He proceeded to accept the admission granted to him in IIT Bombay on 09.11.2020. 17. The IIT (appellant here) alleges that at the time of his admission, to the BS course in IIT Bombay, Soutrik did not disclose that he had accepted the admission in IIT Kharagpur in Chemical Engineering. Thereafter, he pursued the BS (Mathematics) course. Strangely, on 20.11.2020, Soutrik paid the admission fee for IIT Kharagpur, got his documents verified, studiously maintaining silence about the fact that from 09.11.2020, he was a student pursuing a BS (Mathematics) class from IIT Bombay. 18. The IITs pleading before this Court revealed that on 09.11.2020, this Court had opposed the interim order in a Civil Appeal.(Sidhant Batra v. Director IIT Bombay CA 4029/2020) IIT alleges that inspired by the interim order granted by this Court, Soutrik approached the Calcutta High Court on 23.12.2020 and filed his writ petition without making appropriate disclosures about his securing admission in IIT Bombay and that at the time of securing such admission, suppressing information that he had secured admission in IIT Kharagpur. 19. The reasoning of the High Court of Criterion 5 not permitting IIT students to participate in IIT (Advanced) for the second time being arbitrary, in the opinion of this Court is not supportable. This Court has repeatedly emphasized that in matters such as devising admissions criteria or other issues engaging academic institutions, the courts scrutiny in judicial review has to be careful and circumspect. Unless shown to be plainly arbitrary or discriminatory, the court would defer to the wisdom of administrators in academic institutions who might devise policies in regard to curricular admission process, career progression of their employees, matters of discipline or other general administrative issues concerning the institution or university See Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors (2010) 8 SCC 372 . It was held by this court in All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan (2009) 11 SCC 726 . 16. The courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and quality of technical education. If the courts start entertaining petitions from individual institutions or students to permit courses of their choice, either for their convenience or to alleviate hardship or to provide better opportunities, or because they think that one course is equal to another, without realizing the repercussions on the field of technical education in general, it will lead to chaos in education and deterioration in standards of education. 20. Given this general reluctance of courts to substitute the views of academic and expert bodies, the approach of the High Court in proceeding straightaway to characterize the rationale given by the IIT in fashioning the Criteria No. 5 cannot be supported. 21. This court is of opinion that the impugned judgement is in error in holding that the exclusion of a candidate who secures admission but does not opt out of it and virtually abandons it as in the case of Soutrik from participating in the subsequent JEE (Advanced) examination is arbitrary. As recounted earlier, criteria, including Criteria no.5 were devised after extensive consultations between all the IITs and other officials of the Union Government as well as the CBSE. The High Court proceeded to facially compare IITs and non-IIT institutions and hold that candidates who are admitted to non-IIT institutions and who do not proceed in the institution and who are allowed to participate in the subsequent JEE (Advanced) amounts to hostile discrimination and those who secure admission but do not proceed with the course in any given year. 22. In this Courts opinion, given that the Criteria no.5 is a part of the information Brochure, settled as a condition of admission in terms of of JoSAA Rules of 2020 meant that all IITs had adopted a uniform criteria of not permitting candidates who were successful in a previous year but did not pursue their course and did not opt out of taking another chance in the subsequent year. This was a binding norm applicable to all IIT institutions. If one considers the fact that JEE (Advanced) is governed by rules framed under the Act, and regulations, the further detail that it permitted non- IIT candidates who were admitted in a previous year (but did not pursue their course nor withdrew the option in a previous year) is logical. Such non-IIT institutions are not governed by the Act and regulations framed under it or even for that matter JoSAA Business Rules. Furthermore, in the opinion of this Court, securing a seat in any one of the 23 IITs stands on a different footing than securing a seat in non-IIT institution. This is not to in any manner undermine the worth or academic curricula or ranking of such non-IIT institutions. The classification of IITs, on the one hand and non-IIT institutions on the other hand is warranted. This Court does not wish to emphasise this aspect further except to say that the classification is justified both statutorily and in terms of Parliamentary declaration that the Act was conceived as one meant to set-up institutions of excellence having national status. This Court hold Criterion 5 to be valid, aimed at conserving a valuable public resource, i.e. seats in IITs.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]13. At the outset, this Court holds as insubstantial the objection on behalf of the respondent, Soutrik that the IIT should have approached the Division Bench in Letter Patent jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. The ordinary rule of necessity that litigants should approach and avail of appellate remedies exhausting them before approaching this Court is a rule of convenience and not an immutable practice. It has been held to be so by this Court (Ref State of UP v Harish Chandra & Ors 1996 (9) SCC 309) . Moreover, the discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution is flexible and sufficiently wide, to correct glaring errors and injustices. Furthermore, this Court had issued notice on 09.09.2021 and granted an interim order suspending the directions of the High Court. On the two subsequent dates of hearing, i.e. 17.09.2021 and 24.09.2021, there was no objection on the part of the respondent with respect to the maintainability of the present petition. Having regard to all these facts, the objection is hereby overruled.18. The IITs pleading before this Court revealed that on 09.11.2020, this Court had opposed the interim order in a Civil Appeal.(Sidhant Batra v. Director IIT Bombay CA 4029/2020) IIT alleges that inspired by the interim order granted by this Court, Soutrik approached the Calcutta High Court on 23.12.2020 and filed his writ petition without making appropriate disclosures about his securing admission in IIT Bombay and that at the time of securing such admission, suppressing information that he had secured admission in IIT Kharagpur.19. The reasoning of the High Court of Criterion 5 not permitting IIT students to participate in IIT (Advanced) for the second time being arbitrary, in the opinion of this Court is not supportable. This Court has repeatedly emphasized that in matters such as devising admissions criteria or other issues engaging academic institutions, the courts scrutiny in judicial review has to be careful and circumspect. Unless shown to be plainly arbitrary or discriminatory, the court would defer to the wisdom of administrators in academic institutions who might devise policies in regard to curricular admission process, career progression of their employees, matters of discipline or other general administrative issues concerning the institution or university See Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors (2010) 8 SCC 372 . It was held by this court in All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan (2009) 11 SCC 726 .16. The courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and quality of technical education. If the courts start entertaining petitions from individual institutions or students to permit courses of their choice, either for their convenience or to alleviate hardship or to provide better opportunities, or because they think that one course is equal to another, without realizing the repercussions on the field of technical education in general, it will lead to chaos in education and deterioration in standards of education.20. Given this general reluctance of courts to substitute the views of academic and expert bodies, the approach of the High Court in proceeding straightaway to characterize the rationale given by the IIT in fashioning the Criteria No. 5 cannot be supported.21. This court is of opinion that the impugned judgement is in error in holding that the exclusion of a candidate who secures admission but does not opt out of it and virtually abandons it as in the case of Soutrik from participating in the subsequent JEE (Advanced) examination is arbitrary. As recounted earlier, criteria, including Criteria no.5 were devised after extensive consultations between all the IITs and other officials of the Union Government as well as the CBSE. The High Court proceeded to facially compare IITs and non-IIT institutions and hold that candidates who are admitted to non-IIT institutions and who do not proceed in the institution and who are allowed to participate in the subsequent JEE (Advanced) amounts to hostile discrimination and those who secure admission but do not proceed with the course in any given year.22. In this Courts opinion, given that the Criteria no.5 is a part of the information Brochure, settled as a condition of admission in terms of of JoSAA Rules of 2020 meant that all IITs had adopted a uniform criteria of not permitting candidates who were successful in a previous year but did not pursue their course and did not opt out of taking another chance in the subsequent year. This was a binding norm applicable to all IIT institutions. If one considers the fact that JEE (Advanced) is governed by rules framed under the Act, and regulations, the further detail that it permitted non- IIT candidates who were admitted in a previous year (but did not pursue their course nor withdrew the option in a previous year) is logical. Such non-IIT institutions are not governed by the Act and regulations framed under it or even for that matter JoSAA Business Rules. Furthermore, in the opinion of this Court, securing a seat in any one of the 23 IITs stands on a different footing than securing a seat in non-IIT institution. This is not to in any manner undermine the worth or academic curricula or ranking of such non-IIT institutions. The classification of IITs, on the one hand and non-IIT institutions on the other hand is warranted. This Court does not wish to emphasise this aspect further except to say that the classification is justified both statutorily and in terms of Parliamentary declaration that the Act was conceived as one meant to set-up institutions of excellence having national status. This Court hold Criterion 5 to be valid, aimed at conserving a valuable public resource, i.e. seats in IITs.