Akshat Shivhare vs Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Education Government Of India

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18724


WA No.723 of 2026

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A T I N D OR E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
th
ON THE 10 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 723 of 2026
AKSHAT SHIVHARE
Versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF

EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Appearance:
Shri Anirudh Patwa - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Romesh Dave – Deputy Solicitor General for
respondents/Union of India.

JUDEMENT

Per : Justice Subodh Abhyankar:-

1] Heard.
2] The present writ appeal has been preferred under Section 2(1)
of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko
Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 , assailing the order dated 28.10.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 29549 of 2025. By
the impugned order, the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner
seeking grant of compensatory marks has been dismissed on the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 7/16/2026
5:29:08 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18724


WA No.723 of 2026

2
ground that while submitting the online application Form for JEE
Advanced 2025, the petitioner had selected "No" in response to the
columns indicating whether he required the services of a scribe and
whether he sought the benefit of extra time during the examination.
3] Shorn of details, brief facts of the case are that the
appellant/petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition seeking the
following reliefs:-
"7.1 That, this petition may kindly be allowed and a writ of mandamus
may be issued directing respondents to award the petitioner four (4)
compensatory marks in Chemistry Subject for regular rank list or two (2)
compensatory marks in chemistry section for preparatory course rank in
JEE Advanced 2025, and to recompute his aggregate score and rank
accordingly, considering the lack of compensatory time and
discrimination suffered in violation of the Act of 2016; and
7.2 That, directions may be issued to the respondents to allot the
petitioner a PwD Preparatory or Regular seat at any IIT based on his
revised merit position inclusive of the allotted compensatory marks; OR
7.3 That, a writ of mandamus may be issued directing respondents to
allocate to the petitioner one (1) unfilled OBC-NCL-PwD reserved seat in
any IIT to compensate the discrimination caused; OR
7.4 That, the respondents may be directed to allow the Petitioner to
appear for JEE Advanced in the year 2026, by granting one additional
attempt as a PwD candidate, even if he has already exhausted two
attempts as per current norms; AND
7.5 That, respondents may be directed consider what steps could be taken
to rectify the injustice caused to the petitioner within a period of one
week;
7.6 That, direct the respondents to stringently implement binding, uniform
guidelines mandating the grant of all reasonable accommodations under
Act of 2016 (including scribes, compensatory time and other aids) to
eligible PwD candidates in all examinations conducted under their
respective jurisdictions.
7.7 Accord all consequential benefits thereafter;
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 7/16/2026
5:29:08 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18724


WA No.723 of 2026

3
7.8 Pass any other order as deemed fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case and allow cost in favour of the petitioner."
4] The grievance of the appellant/petitioner was that in the
JEE Mains Exam, which took place in the month of April, 2025, he,
despite being a certified person with disability (PwD candidate), was
not granted compensatory time and accommodation, and the request
in this regard was also declined by the invigilator at the examination
centre. However, the appellant/petitioner got through the same and
appeared for the JEE Advanced on 18.05.2025, and again he was
denied compensatory time in both the papers 1 and 2 despite an
explicit request to the invigilator. Thus, being aggrieved of the
discriminatory treatment given to the appellant/petitioner, as the
other PwD participants were granted extra time across India, the
present petition has been filed. The appellant/petitioner’s contention
is that he scored 35 marks in total: 22 in Physics, 14 in Maths, (+6, -
7) -1 in Chemistry. Missed preparatory rank by 2 marks and the IIT
cutoff by 4 marks (Chemistry being the last section attempted
without extra time).
5] Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued before
this Court and the attention of this Court has also been drawn to the
Form, which the appellant was required to fill, namely, Step 1 of the
Registration Form for JEE (Advanced) 2025, in which the questions,
which have been asked are, firstly, “Are you a PwD Candidate?” and
secondly; “Do you have disability and having difficulty in writing?
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 7/16/2026
5:29:08 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18724


WA No.723 of 2026

4
(This is for persons having less than 40% disability and having
difficulty in writing)”. Counsel has submitted that since the appellant
was more than 40% disabled, hence, he was required to write that he
is not a PwD candidate, and since he did not have difficulty in
writing and this clause was for the persons having less than 40%
disability and having difficulty in writing, the appellant had no
option but to give his option as “No”, which has conveyed a
meaning that the appellant does not have a disability and does not
have any difficulty in writing. It is also submitted that the appellant
is suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and was
not able to comprehend the said questions properly, and thus he also
gave his answer as “No” to the questions “Are you a PwD
candidate” and both the questions, viz., “Are you a PwD candidate?”
and “Do you have disability and having difficulty in writing?” were
answered by him as “No” due to confusion.
6] Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that
although the JEE results have already been declared and the
counselling is also over, but there are seats reserved as
supernumerary seats on which the appellant/petitioner can be
accommodated. It is also submitted that so far as the subject
Chemistry is concerned, if the appellant/petitioner is given four
compensatory marks in Chemistry in which he scored negative (-1),
it would have enabled him to secure a regular rank. In support of his
submissions, counsel for the appellant has relied upon certain
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 7/16/2026
5:29:08 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18724


WA No.723 of 2026

5
decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases of Vikas
Kumar Vs. UPSC reported as (2021) 5 SCC 370 ; Prince Jaibir
Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported as (2024) 11 SCC 793 ;
and Atul Kumar Vs. Chairman (Joint Seat Allocation Authority)
and others reported as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2684 .
7] The prayer is vehemently opposed by Shri Romesh Dave,
learned Deputy Solicitor General for respondents/Union of India,
and the attention of this Court has also been drawn to the
information bulletin/brochure in which it is clearly provided that any
person having a disability with at least 40%, is eligible for one hour
compensatory time for each paper, he must, however, fill in the
requisite form (Annexure-II: CERTIFICATE FORMATS) during
registration for availing the compensatory time and/or availing the
services of a scribe (amanuensis). Counsel has also drawn the
attention of this Court to the Annexure – II Certificate Formats and
has submitted that it was mandatory for the appellant/petitioner to
submit the aforesaid Form to the concerned IIT, but no such
application/Form was ever submitted by the appellant/petitioner in
the proper format, and thus, there was no question of granting
compensatory time to him, even assuming that he was a PwD
candidate.
8] Having considered the rival submissions and perusal of the
documents filed on record, we are of the considered opinion that it is
too late in a day for the appellant/petitioner to contend that he was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 7/16/2026
5:29:08 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18724


WA No.723 of 2026

6
deprived of his legal right to claim compensatory time, especially
when he had answered both the questions in negative, i.e., “No” for
the questions, viz., “Are you a PwD candidate?” and “Do you have
disability and having difficulty in writing?”.
9] It is also found that it was mandatory for any PwD
candidate applying for the compensatory time to send the letter in
the proper format viz., Annexure –II CERTIFICATE FORMATS.
However, admittedly, the appellant/petitioner did not submit the
aforesaid letter also, and in such circumstances, in the absence of the
proper format being submitted by the appellant/petitioner, if he was
not given the additional/compensatory time by the invigilator in the
examination hall, no fault can be found in the same.
10] In such circumstances, the reliance placed by the
appellant/petitioner in the cases of Vikas Kumar; Prince Jaibir
Singh; and Atul Kumar (supra) are of no avail to him.
Accordingly, no fault is found in the finding recorded by the writ
Court in passing the impugned order.
11] Resultantly, the appeal being devoid of merits, is hereby
dismissed .

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) (ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE JUDGE

Pankaj
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 7/16/2026
5:29:08 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18724


WA No.723 of 2026

7



Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 7/16/2026
5:29:08 PM