CBSE compartment exam candidate gets fresh JoSAA counselling opportunity after deadline, Delhi HC rules

The petitioner had initially been allotted B.Tech. (Mechanical Engineering) at IIT Delhi through JoSAA counselling but was excluded after failing to satisfy the Class XII Mathematics eligibility requirement.

He appeared in the CBSE Mathematics compartment examination, scheduled after the JoSAA deadline for submitting revised qualifying documents.

JoSAA Business Rule 72(B) permitted candidates whose Class XII passing status was subsequently revised to be considered in later counselling rounds, provided the revised certificate was submitted by 15 July 2026, 17:00 hours.

The petitioner challenged the seat cancellation letter dated 26 June 2026 and sought extension of the deadline, preservation of a seat, and consideration of his candidature after declaration of the compartment result.

In an earlier order dated 17 July 2026, the Court held that a literal application of the deadline would render Rule 72(B) illusory because the CBSE examination itself was scheduled for 28 July 2026.

The petitioner subsequently passed the Mathematics compartment examination with 45 out of 100 marks and claimed to have satisfied the applicable qualifying criteria.

1. Whether the petitioner, having cleared the Class XII Mathematics compartment examination after the JoSAA deadline, could be considered for seat allocation under Rule 72(B) of the JoSAA Business Rules.

2. Whether the prescribed deadline for submission of the revised qualifying certificate could operate to permanently exclude the petitioner when the delay resulted from the scheduling of the CBSE compartment examination after the JoSAA deadline.

3. Whether the respondents could be directed to accommodate the petitioner in accordance with his merit, including by creating or otherwise providing an appropriate seat, subject to his eligibility in JEE (Advanced), 2026.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure fair and non-arbitrary implementation of the admission process.

Rule 1 of the JoSAA Business Rules prescribed a strict, computer-operated timeline and stated that extensions would ordinarily not be entertained.

However, Rule 72(B) specifically contemplated revision of a candidate’s Class XII passing status after choice-locking and permitted consideration in subsequent rounds upon submission of a revised passing certificate; it also contemplated creation of a supernumerary seat where necessary.

In S. Krishna Sradha v. State of A.P., (2020) 17 SCC 465, the Supreme Court recognised that, in exceptional cases where the candidate was not at fault and had approached the court expeditiously, relief could be moulded to secure complete justice while protecting equality and avoiding prejudice to other candidates.

Dental Council of India v. Pravina, (2005) 13 SCC 114, cautioned courts against directing creation of supernumerary seats contrary to statutory control, though accommodation against an available seat could be ordered in peculiar circumstances.

Prathmesh v. Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 1897, recognised that appropriate relief may be explored where institutional error or circumstances beyond the candidate’s control caused loss of an admission opportunity.

The Court held that Rule 72(B) had to be interpreted meaningfully.

Since the CBSE compartment examination was scheduled for 28 July 2026, after the JoSAA deadline of 15 July 2026, strict adherence to the deadline would automatically exclude all similarly placed candidates before their revised eligibility could even be determined.

The petitioner was not seeking relaxation of the substantive eligibility requirement or admission contrary to the Business Rules; he had subsequently obtained the required marks and sought implementation of the very contingency contemplated by Rule 72(B).

The Court also relied on the principle that a meritorious candidate should not suffer for circumstances attributable to the misalignment between the examination and counselling schedules, particularly where the candidate had approached the Court promptly.

In light of the petitioner’s successful compartment result and his assertion that his marks entitled him to the IIT Delhi programme, the Court directed consideration according to merit, while making admission conditional upon satisfaction of the JEE (Advanced), 2026 eligibility requirements.

Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 were directed to take steps to accommodate him as per his merit and to grant admission if he satisfied the eligibility requirements based on his JEE (Advanced), 2026 marks.

Compliance was directed within one week from uploading of the order.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, and the pending hearing date was cancelled.