Private institutions have no vested right to repeated spot admissions after prescribed academic deadlines.

K.S. College of Professional Education, a private non-aided institution offering the Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) course, approached the Patna High Court through its Chief Administrative Officer seeking a direction to the Bihar School Examination Board to conduct a second round of spot admission for the 2025–27 session.

The Board had conducted a common admission test between 25 August and 27 September 2025, followed by multiple admission rounds for Government and private institutions.

After three admission rounds and one spot-admission round for private institutions, the petitioner claimed that 57 seats remained vacant and that approximately 76 students were willing to seek admission.

The petitioner contended that a second spot-admission round had been permitted for Government Colleges but not for private institutions, which allegedly violated Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Board opposed the petition, stating that the petitioner had received four opportunities, including the spot-admission round, but had admitted only 43 students against its sanctioned intake of 100.

According to the Board, the admission process had concluded in accordance with the notified schedule, and a further round would disrupt the academic calendar and teaching process.

The Board further submitted that the first and second semester examinations had already commenced.

Whether the petitioner, a private non-aided D.El.Ed. institution, was entitled to a direction for a second round of spot admission to fill its vacant seats for the 2025–27 session?

Whether permitting a second spot-admission round only for Government Colleges, and not for the petitioner’s private institution, was arbitrary or discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution?

Whether such a direction could be issued after the admission timetable and the date fixed for commencement of the academic session, in light of the Supreme Court’s prescribed timelines?

The Court relied principally on Maa Vaishno Devi Mahavidyalaya v. State of U.P., (2013) 2 SCC 617, which prescribed a strict timetable for admission and affiliation in teaching and training institutions, including commencement of the academic session on 1 July and completion of counselling by 25 June.

It also considered College of Professional Education v. State of U.P., (2013) 2 SCC 721, which emphasised that seats should be filled through counselling pursuant to an entrance examination before commencement of the academic session.

The Court further applied the principle that a private institution has no vested or fundamental right to compel the examining authority to conduct repeated admission rounds merely to fill all sanctioned seats.

It held that Government Colleges, being State-funded institutions established to serve economically weaker and rural students, may legitimately be treated differently from self-financed private institutions, provided the classification is rational and connected with the object sought to be achieved.

The Court found that the petitioner had already been permitted to participate in three regular admission rounds and one spot-admission round for private institutions.

The petitioner’s admission of only 43 students against an intake of 100 was therefore not attributable to any demonstrated act or omission of the Board.

The Court accepted the Board’s distinction between Government Colleges and private self-financing institutions: Government Colleges are publicly funded and intended, inter alia, to provide affordable teacher training to economically weaker and rural candidates, whereas private institutions operate on a self-financing basis.

This distinction was held sufficient to repel the Article 14 challenge.

Further, granting a second spot-admission round after the Supreme Court’s prescribed timeline, particularly after the date fixed for commencement of the academic session and when examinations had commenced, would interfere with the academic calendar and the binding admission schedule.

Although the Supreme Court precedents favour filling seats through counselling, that principle operates within the prescribed admission timetable and did not confer an entitlement to repeated admissions after the process had concluded.

The prayer for directing the Board to conduct a second spot-admission round for the petitioner’s D.El.Ed. institution was rejected.

The writ petition was accordingly closed.

However, the Court observed that the State and the Board should formulate guidelines for future sessions, consistent with the Supreme Court’s directions, so that seats are filled through counselling pursuant to the entrance examination before commencement of the academic session.