In a letters patent appeal filed before the Delhi High Court, assailing an order dated 17-10-2025 by which the Single Judge dismissed the petition, holding that no fresh round of counselling could be ordered as the admission process had come to an end, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed the appeal holding that there had to be a finality to the admission process and that the appellant was unable to show that the courts are empowered to issue a writ of Mandamus to compel a university to conduct a fresh round of counselling.
On 01-08-2025, the Delhi University (DU) notified the commencement of LLB classes for the Academic Year 2025-26. Thereafter, the Spot Round III and IV were held on 08-08-2025 and 02-09-2025, respectively. The appellant, an Other Backward Classes (OBC) candidate, alleged that after the Spot Round IV was closed, DU concealed the status of 98 Unreserved/OBC seats that were available. The appellant submitted a query to DU seeking disclosure of vacancies available in OBC seats for the LLB course and expressed his wish to be considered as a candidate for the leftover seats.
DU issued a notification on 29-09-2025 stating that 30-09-2025 was the last date for admission to all academic programmes, and that withdrawals were permitted till 10-10-2025. Thereafter, the appellant filed a petition, which the Single Judge dismissed vide the impugned order. The appellant contended that there were many vacancies for LLB in the OBC category, which, if disclosed correctly, would entitle the appellant to consideration in a fresh round of counselling.
DU contended that if the prayer sought by the appellant were granted, the counselling process would be never-ending. It was also submitted that the appellant was not even eligible for Spot Round IV since the last cut-off marks were 155.
The Court observed that the appellant secured 151 marks in the CUET examination, whereas the cut-off marks for OBC candidates in Spot Round IV were 155 marks. Hence, the Court was unable to appreciate the basis on which the appellant sought a Mandamus to direct DU to conduct another round of counselling. The Court referred to Neelu Arora & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2003 SCC OnLine SC 119 and noted that the Supreme Court had observed that if certain seats are not filled for various reasons, that could not be a ground to direct the university authorities to hold another round of counselling.
The Court clarified that, given the scheme of admissions, there must be finality to the admission process, and that the appellant was unable to show any reason or place any judgment on record that would empower the Courts to issue a writ of Mandamus compelling a university to conduct a fresh round of counselling. Thus, the appeal was dismissed for being without merit.
Appearances:
For Appellant – Mr. Ankit Mittal, Mr. Sachin
For Respondents – Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Mr. Hardik Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra, Ms. Tripta Sharma, Ms. Lopamudra Mahapatra
