The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by an 18-year-old student, challenging her disqualification from admission to the Bachelor of Architecture (B.Arch.) course under the Joint Seat Allocation Authority (JoSAA) counselling process. The petitioner was declared ineligible for not meeting the minimum requirement of 75% aggregate marks in Class XII or being in the top 20 percentile of her board criteria introduced in JoSAA’s 2025 business rules.
The petitioner argued that the eligibility criteria were changed “midway” after she had already taken the JEE (Main) exams and participated in the admission process based on NTA’s information bulletin, which required only 50% aggregate marks for B.Arch. admissions. Her counsel contended that changing the eligibility criteria after the exam process had begun was a violation of the settled legal principle that “rules of the game cannot be changed mid-game.”
However, the bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Y.G. Khobragade held that JoSAA, not the NTA, is the competent authority for setting eligibility criteria for seat allocation and admissions. The Court pointed out that the NTA bulletin itself contained a clause stating that the admission policy of the competent authority would govern admissions, and candidates were advised to verify their eligibility accordingly.
The Court further observed that the petitioner had voluntarily participated in the JoSAA counselling process after agreeing to abide by the business rules, including the 75% criterion. Her challenge was therefore held to be untenable. The Court also rejected claims of arbitrariness in the scaling down of marks, finding the process to be uniformly applied and transparent.
The Court concluded that JoSAA, as the designated authority for admissions to premier technical institutions, was well within its rights to prescribe higher eligibility norms than those set by statutory bodies like the Council of Architecture. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the Court noting that the student was still free to seek admission to institutions outside the JoSAA framework.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Mr. Aditya N Sikchi & Mr. Rahul Kasat, Advocate for the
Respondents: Mr. Bhushan Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Arjun Mitra a/w. Mr. Krishna P. Rodge, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.
