Mandatory Entrance Test for Private Diploma Colleges Struck Down as Arbitrary if Government Institutes Admit Students via Class 10th Marks

The Petitioner is a private technical institution offering diploma courses, affiliated with the Board of Technical Education (BTE).

Following the enactment of the Delhi Skilled Entrepreneurship University (DSEU) Act in 2019, government-run polytechnics were merged into DSEU.

For the 2026-27 session, the Respondent’s Information Bulletin (Clause 9) mandated a Common Entrance Test (CET) for admissions to private and government-aided institutions under BTE.

However, institutions directly under DSEU were permitted to admit students based on Class X marks without a CET requirement.

The Petitioner challenged this distinction as discriminatory.

The Court primarily applied Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law and forbids "class legislation" while permitting "reasonable classification".

Relying on West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar and S. Seshachalam v. Bar Council of T.N., the Court held that for a classification to be valid, it must be founded on an "intelligible differentia" and must have a "rational nexus" to the object sought to be achieved.

The Court examined Section 13 of the Delhi Diploma Level Technical Education Institutions Act, 2007, which prescribes CET-based admissions.

The Court found that both DSEU-affiliated government institutes and BTE-affiliated private institutes provide identical diplomas and technical education.

The bifurcation into two different administrative bodies (DSEU and BTE) was an executive decision made by the Government, not a choice exercised by the Petitioner.

The Court reasoned that subjecting BTE institutes to a mandatory CET while allowing DSEU institutes to admit students based on Class X marks created two parallel admission mechanisms for the same courses.

This selective application of the CET requirement under the 2007 Act lacked a rational nexus to the objective of admitting competent students and placed private institutes at a disadvantage.

Consequently, the classification was deemed "ex-facie arbitrary" as it lacked any intelligible differentia.

While the Court declined to interfere with CET-allotted admissions already processed for 2026-27, it directed that the Petitioner is entitled to fill any vacant seats (including management quota) based on Class X results.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.