Full Judgment Text
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 13.02.2026
+ LPA 631/2025 & CM APPL. 63985/2025, CM APPL. 63986/2025,
CM APPL. 63987/2025, CM APPL. 63988/2025
JIGYANSH GADI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ajay Kr. Pipaniya, Advocate.
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar, Mr. Devansh
Malhotra, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Ankur Chhibber and Mr
Anshuman Mehrotra, Advocate for R-
2.
Mr. Sandeep Chaudhary, Advocate for
R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
TEJAS KARIA, J. ( ORAL)
1. The Appellant has filed the present Appeal being aggrieved by the
Judgment dated 26.08.2025 (“ Impugned Judgment ”) passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.11541/2025 (“ Writ Petition ”), thereby
dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant seeking a direction to the
Respondents to grant admission to the Appellant in B. Com (Hons.) Course
at Respondent No. 2-Shri Ram College of Commerce (“ College ”) and to set
aside the rejection dated 23.07.2025 whereby Appellant’s application seeking
Signature Not Verified
LPA 631/2025 Page 1 of 10
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.02.2026
10:26:19
admission in Respondent No. 2-College was rejected with the remark
“Application Rejected – Invalid category documents / certificate submitted”.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present Appeal are as under:
2.1 On 07.3.2025, Respondent No. 1-University of Delhi published
Bulletin of Information (“ Bulletin ”) and Common Seat Allocation
System (“ CSAS ”) for admission to Undergraduate Programs and
Common Seat Allocation System for academic session 2025-26, which
prescribed the requisite documents to be submitted in stipulated format
and timelines.
2.2 The Appellant, a differently abled person, on 22.03.2025 applied
for the Common University Entrance Test (Under Graduate) – 2025
Examination (“ CUET ”) under the Persons with Benchmark
Disabilities (“ PwBD ”) category.
2.3 At the time of CUET registration, the Appellant submitted
medical and psycho-educational documents evidencing his specific
learning disability and other medical records issued by certified
authorities under Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016 (“ RPwD Act ”). The same were duly accepted by Respondent
No. 1-University of Delhi and the Appellant was allowed to sit in
CUET.
2.4 The National Testing Agency (“ NTA ”) based on the medical
documents submitted by the Appellant, issued admit card to the
Appellant under the PwBD category. The Appellant was also granted
all applicable benefits for PwBD candidates, including compensatory
time and support accommodations.
2.5 On 04.07.2025, the result of the CUET was declared and the
Signature Not Verified
LPA 631/2025 Page 2 of 10
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.02.2026
10:26:19
Appellant’s name came in the first cut-off list under the PwBD category
published by the Respondent No. 1-University of Delhi and the
Appellant was allotted a set in B. Com (Hons.) course at Respondent
No. 2 - College.
2.6 On 20.07.2025, the Admission Committee of Respondent No. 2-
College directed the Appellant to upload a valid PwBD Certificate
(“ Disability Certificate ”) linked with Unique Disability ID (“ UDID ”)
by 21.07.2025 besides the certified medical documents issued by the
certified authority in favour of the Appellant.
2.7 The Appellant submitted all the relevant documents including
acknowledgment dated 11.07.2025 issued by the Ministry of Social
Justice and Empowerment for applying for Disability Certificate and
medical referrals from the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied
Sciences.
2.8 On 23.07.2025, the Respondent No. 2-College rejected the
Appellant’s application with the remark that “Application Rejected –
Invalid category documents / certificate submitted”. On the same day,
the Appellant sent an e-mail to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 requesting
them for some considerable and reasonable time to furnish the requisite
documents, however, the Respondent No. 2-College rejected the said
request of the Appellant.
2.9 Aggrieved by the rejection dated 23.07.2025, the Appellant
preferred the Writ Petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single
Judge by the Impugned Judgment, against which the Appellant has
preferred the present Appeal.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 631/2025 Page 3 of 10
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.02.2026
10:26:19
3. The main grievance of the Appellant is that the Appellant was denied
the admission in Respondent No. 2-College despite qualifying CUET for
admission in PwBD category and submitting the documents issued by the
certified authority in accordance with Section 2(r) of the RPwD Act, which
were duly accepted by Respondent No.1 - University of Delhi at the time of
allowing the Appellant to sit in CUET. The Appellant challenged the action
of Respondent No. 2-College for requiring the Appellant to provide the
Disability Certificate within a short period of one day as being arbitrary and
infringing the rights of the Appellant under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 and the doctrine of reasonable accommodation as
enshrined under the RPwD Act.
4. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that admittedly, the
Appellant is a meritorious differently abled candidate and has availed and was
granted benefits under PwBD category during his entire school life. The
Appellant has challenged the window of single day to provide the Disability
Certificate on ground of it being unjust and unfair since obtaining the
Disability Certificate involves an elaborate medical process and it was beyond
the control of the Appellant to obtain the same within one day.
5. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Impugned
Judgment ignores the concept of reasonable accommodation under Sections
2(y), 2(c) and 16 of the RPwD Act and fails to apply the doctrine of legitimate
expectation arising out of the doctrine of reasonable accommodation. It was
also submitted that rejection of the Appellant’s admission is indirect
discrimination and the time of one day to comply with the requirement to
provide the Disability Certificate was disproportionate as the PwBD candidates
by nature require more time and accommodation to complete such procedure.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 631/2025 Page 4 of 10
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.02.2026
10:26:19
6. The Appellant has submitted that the Appellant ought to have been
granted sympathetic consideration as the Appellant was in possession of
multiple medical records issued by recognized hospitals including
Government Institutions to establish his disability as nothing in the Bulletin
or CSAS forbids provisional measures in exceptional cases.
7. According to the Appellant, the Impugned Judgment wrongly
described the Appellant’s conduct as lackadaisical without appreciating that
the Appellant, being a minor PwBD candidate with a psychological disorder,
had limited means to fully comprehend the procedural nuisances. It was
submitted that the Appellant acted with diligence immediately when
Respondent No. 2 - College raised the demand for the Disability Certificate
by promptly approaching the concerned authorities as the Appellant was
under bona fide impression that the documents already submitted were
sufficient as the same were accepted in the past for giving CUET.
8. The learned Counsel for the Appellant further contended that the CSAS
provisions are not mandatory, contrary to the conclusion reached in the
Impugned Judgment as these clauses are subordinate to the statutory
mechanism of RPwD Act, particularly given the undisputed disability status
of the Appellant, which necessitated the exercise of discretionary powers to
prevent discrimination.
9. The Appellant has relied upon the following judgments in support of
the above submissions:
• Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India & Anr. ,
(2014) 14 SCC 383 holding that that the Executive must be liberal
in disability matters;
• S. Krishna Sradha v. State of A.P. , (2020) 17 SCC 465 holding that
Signature Not Verified
LPA 631/2025 Page 5 of 10
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.02.2026
10:26:19
technicalities cannot defeat right to education;
• Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services , 2025
SCC OnLine SC 481, holding that indirect discrimination is
impermissible;
• Suyash Suryakant Patil v. National Medical Commission & Ors. ,
(2025) SCC OnLine Bom 369, Shahid Akeel Shaikh v. Union of
India , (2024) SCC OnLine Bom 3027, and Dhunoon Khan v.
Union of India , W.P.(C) No. 2191/2023, where PwBD candidate
was granted admission even after deadlines, by way of
supernumerary seats or provisional admission, and by giving an
undertaking on provisional seat;
• S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. , (2020) 17
SCC 465, holding that denial of fair and transparent treatment in
admissions violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of
India, 1950 and any illegal denial must be remedied by restoring the
candidate to their original position;
• Chandigarh Admin & Ors. v. Jasmine Kaur & Ors. , (2014) 10
SCC 521, holding that in exceptional circumstances, where the
candidate is without fault and the illegality lies solely with the
authorities, the Court may grant admission as exceptional relief
within the prescribed schedule to uphold equality and fairness.
10. The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1-University of Delhi has
submitted that the entire admission process is governed by a uniform,
transparent and time-bound admission framework laid down in CSAS and
Bulletin, which were publicly notified well in advance and are binding on all
Signature Not Verified
LPA 631/2025 Page 6 of 10
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.02.2026
10:26:19
the applicants, which required uploading all requisite certificates in the
prescribed formats withing the specific time notified and any failure to submit
documents results in automatic rejection of the candidature, without any
discretion to relax or waive such compliance.
11. It was further submitted on behalf of Respondent No. 1-University of
Delhi that the requirement of submission of valid Disability Certificate in the
prescribed format was already stipulated in CSAS and the Bulletin and was
not a newly introduced requirement. However, the Appellant failed to comply
with the same. It was further submitted that permitting the candidate to appear
in CUET did not create a vested right to admission giving rise to a legitimate
expectation as the admission was provisional and subject to the condition of
fulfilling post-exam eligibility criteria. In support, reliance was placed on
Sonam Rawat v. University of Delhi , 2023 SCC OnLine Del 375, wherein it
was held that the Bulletin of Information has the force of law and there is no
estopple against law and, therefore, there is no legitimate expectation or
estopple applicable.
12. It was also submitted on behalf of Respondent No. 1-University of
Delhi that there was no discrimination as the requirement of Disability
Certificate in a prescribed format was a uniform condition applicable to all
PwBD candidates and it was not an unreasonable or disproportionate
requirement as the doctrine of reasonable accommodation does not extend to
relaxation of essential eligibility conditions.
13. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel
for the Parties. The Appellant was well aware about the requirement for
submission of Disability Certificate as prescribed under the Bulletin since
Signature Not Verified
LPA 631/2025 Page 7 of 10
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.02.2026
10:26:19
07.03.2025. It was specifically notified that the Disability Certificate has to
be in a prescribed format and if the same is issued after 01.06.2021, it must
be as per the Gazette Notification No. 1736(E) dated 05.05.2021 issued by the
Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities and applied
through the UDID Portal. The candidates were further put to notice that they
must ensure that the Disability Certificate is in the name of the candidate and
issued by recognized Government Hospital bearing the duly attested
photograph of the candidate.
14. Further, CSAS clearly provided that the candidates belonging to
various reserved categories, who do not have a valid certificate / document
issued by respective issuing authority at the time of applying will not be
considered for allocation in the relevant category as claimed. The CSAS also
provided the format in which the disability certificate has to be issued by the
concerned authority.
15. However, the documents submitted by the Appellant were not in the
prescribed format as required by CSAS. Further, the Appellant did not apply
for obtaining the Disability Certificate through the UDID Portal as required
by the Bulletin until 11.07.2025. Hence, the delay in applying for the
Disability Certificate by the Appellant cannot be attributed to Respondent No.
2-College as even though a longer time would have been granted to the
Appellant, it would not have been possible for the Appellant to obtain the
Disability Certificate within the required time.
16. Further, in absence of any provision in the Bulletin or CSAS for
granting relaxation of the requirement to provide the Disability Certificate in
the prescribed format or extension of the cut-off date to provide additional
Signature Not Verified
LPA 631/2025 Page 8 of 10
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.02.2026
10:26:19
time to the Appellant for obtaining valid Disability Certificate for establishing
the relevant category claimed, no such relaxation or extension can be granted.
17. The learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon the decision in P.
Nihal Srivastava Through its Natural Guardian P. Harish Babu v. Union
of India , 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3113, which held that the rules governing the
examination are applicable to all students and if any relaxation is required to
be made, the same has to find place in the rule. It is further held that Courts
cannot be permitted to tweak the rule to suit personal exigencies and deal with
the difficulties being faced by the individual students, even if those difficulties
are not attributed to any fault on part of the students, as otherwise it would
result in total anarchy.
18. The learned Single Judge has dealt with all the decisions relied upon by
the Appellant in the Impugned Judgment by giving detailed reasons as to their
inapplicability to the facts of the present case. We entirely agree with the
analysis of the learned Single Judge in the Impugned Judgment as none of the
judgments relied upon by the Appellant dealt with the facts similar to the
present case where the Appellant was aware of the requirement for the
admission since 07.03.2025, however, waited till 11.07.2025 for applying for
the Disability Certificate through UDID Portal.
19. Accordingly, the requirement of providing the Disability Certificate by
the Appellant within one day was not unreasonable as the Appellant despite
being aware of the requirement since long, had failed to meet with the criteria
for the admission.
20. It is a settled law that the Court cannot change the mandatory criteria
for admission or introduce new timeline once the process has started for the
admission as it would impact all the other candidates. As the Appellant failed
Signature Not Verified
LPA 631/2025 Page 9 of 10
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.02.2026
10:26:19
to provide the required document in the prescribed format, Respondent No. 2-
College was entitled to cancel the admission and allot the seat to the candidate,
who has provided the required documents.
21. Upon being asked as to the availability of the seat, the learned Counsel
for Respondent No. 2-College submitted, on instructions, that no vacant seats
are available that can be allotted to the Appellant.
22. In view of the above analysis, we do not find any merit in the present
Appeal as the Impugned Judgment does not require any interference.
Accordingly, the present Appeal along with the pending Applications stands
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
TEJAS KARIA, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
FEBRUARY 13, 2026
ap
Signature Not Verified
LPA 631/2025 Page 10 of 10
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.02.2026
10:26:19