The Delhi High Court has observed that students who spend “hours and months” preparing for admission to premier institutions cannot be made to suffer merely because the timelines of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and the Joint Seat Allocation Authority (JoSAA) are not aligned. [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 681]

Justice Jasmeet Singh made the observation while hearing petitions filed by two students whose admissions to IIT Delhi and the School of Planning and Architecture (SPA), Delhi, were cancelled after they narrowly missed the minimum Class XII eligibility criteria and were awaiting the results of their compartment and improvement examinations.

The Court issued notice on the petitions filed by Daksh Singhal, an ST-category candidate who had secured admission to B.Tech (Mechanical Engineering) at IIT Delhi, and Paras Batra, a PwD candidate who had been allotted a seat in the B.Arch programme at SPA, Delhi.

Singhal had secured an ST rank of 144 in JEE (Advanced) 2026 but obtained 64.2% marks in Mathematics in the Class XII examination, falling marginally short of the 65% threshold applicable to ST candidates. His seat was subsequently cancelled.

Similarly, Batra, who has a specific learning disability and holds a permanent UDID card, secured admission under the PwD quota but fell short of the prescribed aggregate marks requirement by 0.2%. His admission was also cancelled.

Both students approached the High Court seeking extension of the deadline under Rule 72(B) of the JoSAA Business Rules, which permits candidates whose Class XII results are revised following re-evaluation or compartment examinations to be considered for admission in subsequent counselling rounds.

Under Rule 72(B), candidates who become eligible following a revision in their Class XII results are required to submit their revised certificates to JoSAA by July 15, 2026, following which they may be considered for seat allocation and, if necessary, supernumerary seats may be created.

However, the petitioners pointed out that the CBSE compartment and improvement examinations are scheduled to be conducted only on July 28, after the July 15 deadline and the completion of JoSAA counselling.

Senior Advocate Arjun Mitra, appearing for JoSAA and the institutions concerned, argued that all seats had already been allocated and that educational institutions could not be directed to act contrary to the terms of their prospectus or admission brochures. He relied on previous decisions of the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court emphasising that courts should not interfere with academic schedules on sympathetic considerations.

Justice Singh however observed that the operation of Rule 72(B) would become “illusory and moonshine” if students appearing for compartment or improvement examinations were rendered ineligible because the CBSE examination schedule extended beyond JoSAA's deadline.

“Once the respondent institutions have themselves provided children including children with special categories (PwD, SC, ST) to improve their score to become eligible, it must be done in a meaningful manner,” the Court observed.

The Court further noted that if the July 15 deadline were treated as inviolable, all students appearing in compartment and improvement examinations conducted on July 28 would automatically become ineligible for admission.

Observing that the petitioners had secured seats at prestigious institutions through hard work, the Court held,

“Children study for hours and months to get admissions in prestigious institutions and their efforts cannot be ignored merely because CBSE and respondent institutions are not in sync with each other.”

The Court held that the petitioners were not seeking any relaxation of the eligibility criteria or directions contrary to the JoSAA rules, but only a “meaningful implementation” of Rule 72(B), which expressly contemplates consideration of candidates whose Class XII results are revised.

It further observed that Rule 72(B) itself envisages the creation of supernumerary seats for candidates who become eligible after the revision of their Class XII results.

Accordingly, the Court held that the petitioners had established a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in their favour.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on August 21.

Appearance: Mr Raghav Nagar, Adv for Petitioner; Mr Dhananjai Rana CGSC for R1 Ms. Manisha Singh, ASC for R2 Mr Arjun Mitra, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Jayanti Jha, Advs. for R3-4

Case Title: Daksh Singhal Through His Father and Natural Guardian v. Union of India & Ors. and Paras Batra v. Joint Seat Allocation Authority (JoSAA) 2026 & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 681

Case no.: W.P.(C) 9503/2026

Click here to read order