Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a scheduled caste student who secured All India Rank 864 in the JEE Advanced 2021 and was allotted a seat for Civil Engineering (B.Tech) at IIT Bombay, approached the Bombay High Court seeking a direction to the respondents to permit him to pay the Seat Acceptance Fees and participate in the admission process. The petitioner had accepted the seat under the 'Slide' option and uploaded documents, but could not pay the fees by the deadline due to insufficient funds; when his sister transferred money on 30 October 2021, multiple online payment attempts on 30 and 31 October 2021 failed with error messages such as 'sorry, unable to process request' and 'invalid server access'. The petitioner contacted the Joint Seat Allocation Authority (JoSAA) through email and physically visited the office but received no redress. The petition was filed when the admission counselling was still in progress, with Round 4 ongoing and a total of six rounds. The respondents contended that under the JoSAA Business Rules, non-payment of the Seat Acceptance Fee by the deadline of 31 October 2021 at 12:00 noon amounted to rejection of the seat, and the petitioner was therefore out of the admission process. They argued that the process is entirely computerized with no human intervention, that the rules are binding, and that the court cannot direct a violation of the rules, relying on Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur and Pallavi Sharma v. College of Vocational Studies. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court order in Siddhanth Batra v. Director, IIT Bombay, where relief had been granted in a case of inadvertent withdrawal. The High Court noted the undisputed facts that the petitioner attempted payment three times, and the bank's email confirmed the failure was due to 'no response from card issuing bank ACS' and 'Auth Error'. The court observed that Rule 77 of the Business Rules provides a grievance redressal mechanism, indicating that the authorities could have considered the petitioner's grievance. Distinguishing the decisions cited by the respondents, the court held that the present case involved peculiar facts where technical failure was not attributable to the petitioner, and he had acted diligently. Exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, the court directed the respondents to accept the Seat Acceptance Fees from the petitioner within 48 hours and to treat him as having accepted the seat and process his admission to the B.Tech Civil Engineering course at IIT Bombay, subject to eligibility. The order was expressly confined to the peculiar facts and made clear not to be treated as a precedent.
Headnote
A) Admission Law - Online Seat Allocation Process - Binding Nature of Business Rules and Effect of Non-Payment - JoSAA Business Rules, 2021, Rules 40, 69 - Non-payment of Seat Acceptance Fee within the stipulated deadline results in automatic rejection of the offered seat and the candidate is excluded from further rounds. (Paras 11-14, 17) B) Constitutional Law - Writs under Article 226 - Equitable Relief Despite Binding Rules - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The High Court may in exceptional cases grant relief to a candidate who failed to pay fees due to technical errors not attributable to him, especially when a grievance redressal mechanism exists. (Paras 20-22, 24) C) Admission Law - Grievance Redressal Mechanism - Interpretation of Rule 77 - JoSAA Business Rules, 2021, Rule 77 - Rule 77 provides a mechanism for addressing grievances; the court considered that the authorities could have accepted the grievance and granted relief; in the absence of response, the court intervened. (Paras 22-23) D) Precedent - Technical Payment Failure - Inadvertent Error - Supreme Court in Siddhanth Batra v. Director, IIT Bombay & Ors., Civil Appeal No.4029 of 2020 had allowed regularization of admission where the candidate inadvertently withdrew; the Bombay High Court followed similar approach. (Paras 8, 23) E) Legal Principle - Mandamus Against Authorities - Courts cannot direct authorities to violate their own rules except in special circumstances; the present case fell within such special circumstances due to technical failure beyond candidate's control. (Paras 18, 24)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Petitioner, who failed to pay the Seat Acceptance Fee by the deadline due to technical errors, is entitled to any relief considering the provisions of the JoSAA Business Rules and the existence of a grievance redressal mechanism under Rule 77 thereof, and whether the High Court under Article 226 can issue directions to accept the fee beyond the deadline.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, directing the Respondents to accept the Seat Acceptance Fees from the Petitioner within 48 hours and to treat the Petitioner as having accepted the seat and process his admission to the B.Tech Civil Engineering Course at IIT Bombay, provided the Petitioner otherwise meets all eligibility criteria. The Court made it clear that the order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent.
Law Points
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- 1950
- Business Rules of Joint Seat Allocation Authority (JoSAA) 2021
- Rule 40
- Rule 69
- Rule 77
- technical payment failure not attributable to candidate
- grievance redressal mechanism
- equitable relief
- binding nature of admission rules
- non-payment as rejection of seat
- distinction from inadvertent error
- scope of writ jurisdiction
