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

3. Soutrik appeared in the Joint Entrance Examination (Main), 2020 and on the basis of the percentile obtained by him was qualified and eligible to appear in the JEE (Advanced), 2020. He scored rank 4015 which was not up to his expectation. He participated in the counselling process for admission in the institute and secured admission in the Chemical Engineering Dual Course, at IIT Kharagpur. The common entrance examination system for the 23 IITs is based on the JEE (Main) examination, conducted by the National Testing Agency in four phases, which culminates in a merit list drawn up for students vying for admission in the 23 IITs and 87 National Institute of Technologies (NITs), Indian Institute of Information Technology (IIIT) and certain government funded institutes. The four phases of these JEE (Main) examinations are conducted on various dates. Amongst those who compete for the JEE (Main) exam, those falling in the top 2.5 lakhs of those students, based on merit are allowed to register for admission to the JEE (Advanced) examination.4. Soutrik wished to appear in JEE, 2021 to secure admission to a course of his choice, but the eligibility criteria for appearing in JEE (Advanced), 2021 prevented him from doing so. The eligibility criteria, is so framed that a candidate can attempt JEE (Advanced) a maximum of two times in consecutive years irrespective of whether or not he passed the qualifying examination. It further stipulates that a candidate who had taken admission in any institute other than IITs in 2020 is eligible to appear in JEE (Advanced), 2021 provided she or he satisfies other eligibility criteria. In view of the aforesaid restriction Soutrik could not compete in JEE (Advanced), 2021 as he got himself admitted in IIT Kharagpur in the year 2020. In these circumstances, he approached the court, complaining arbitrariness and also challenging the concerned eligibility criteria.5. The IIT which resisted the writ petition justified the impugned criterion, i.e. No.5, contending that it was neither illegal nor unconstitutional and was based on sound public policy considerations. It was argued that the JEE (Advanced) Information Brochure contained uniform criteria applicable to all candidates appearing for the competitive examination for admission to IITs. It was submitted that the withdrawal option was so designed as to achieve two primary objectives, firstly, avoidance of wastage or blockage of seats and consequently to enable students to improve their performance in the subsequent year and if eligible, to participate again. It was, therefore, argued that in the event the candidate did not exercise an option and did not reject the seat already accepted, her or his candidature would be precluded for the subsequent year for the reason that in the year that she did not opt to continue in the course, it would not have been possible to fill up the seat for the rest of the course.6. It was further pointed out that conditions such as Criteria no.5 is in the public domain from 06.03.2020, on the one hand and that similar provisions were consistently followed and applied for over five years. Pointing out that the JEE (Advanced) was conducted on 27.09.2020 involving six rounds of counselling which finally concluded on 07.11.2020 for IITs in accordance with the rules, the IIT objected to the petitioners conduct in waiting till the end of the entire process and then approaching the Court in third week of December 2020. Soutrik had argued that he could not withdraw from the seat allocation (i.e. the admission to IIT Kharagpur) after the fifth round due to inadvertence. This submission was contested and the IIT alleged that he was estopped from so contending.7. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment, faulted the impugned criteria for discriminating against a successful candidate who secures a seat in one of the IITs and preventing her or him from competing in the subsequent examination whereas permitting candidates who secure admissions in non-IIT institutions, to do so. It was reasoned that in either case, an available asset in the form of a seat in an engineering institution gets wasted – a logic which applies to both IITs and non-IIT institutions. The learned Single Judge also referred to those who withdrew their candidature voluntarily. In 2020, there were 847 such candidates who did so because the seat was not according to their liking or the subject combination was not in accordance with their wishes. Such candidates were permitted to appear in the subsequent examination process. There was no prejudice or injustice caused to them. However, in cases, where the candidates did not opt to withdraw their candidature after securing a seat, there is prejudice in the sense that they are not allowed to appear in a subsequent examination to test their merit and secure admission in better ranking institute or in different sub-streams on the basis of rank based purely on their meritorious performance. On the basis of this reasoning it was held that Soutrik was debarred from appearing in the JEE for the second time only on the basis of being an IITian who was admitted in Chemistry in IIT Kharagpur but was desirous of studying in computer science.

Reasoning: 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.