In a writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to register and participate in the counselling programme of the Joint Admission Committee (JAC) (respondent 3) to enable the petitioner to take admission in one of the universities for an undergraduate programme in engineering, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh directed JAC to allot a seat to the petitioner in the institution corresponding to his rank and to treat him as a Resident Indian National within 2 weeks.
The petitioner, born in Houston, U.S.A., had cleared his Class XII examinations from the Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi, in 2026, and held an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI)/Person of Indian Origin (POI) card issued on 31-10-2019. He appeared in the Joint Entrance Examinations, 2026 (JEE) under the OCI/POI category and scored 99.21% with an All India Rank of 12,617. When the petitioner attempted online registration for the Joint Admission Committee (JAC) Counselling Programme, he was unable to register because he was an OCI card holder, and the JAC counselling programme did not allow OCI card holders to participate. The petitioner contacted the JAC grievance committee, but no action was taken on his representation, leading him to file the present petition.
The petitioner argued that the Ministry of Home Affairs, by a notification dated 04-03-2021, restricted OCI card holders from being allotted seats reserved for Indian Nationals and did not affect OCI cardholders who obtained their cards before 04-03-2021. It was contended that the Direct Admission of Students Abroad (DASA) Counselling was not a viable alternative, since the DASA Information Brochure, 2026 required OCI cardholders to have studied for at least 2 years out of the past 8 years, inclusive of Class XI/XII, in a foreign country.
Respondent 3 argued that the eligibility criteria governing JAC Delhi admissions were published in advance in the Admission Brochure and were available in the public domain, and that any relaxation would adversely impact the legitimate expectations of other candidates. It was submitted that the petitioner, being an OCI card holder, was ineligible for JAC Delhi 2026 and had not challenged the brochure, which is why relief could not be granted. Respondent 4 submitted that the petitioner was ineligible for DASA counselling as he had not pursued education outside India for at least 2 years out of the past 8 years.
Examining the ratio in Anushka Rengunthwar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2023) 11 SCC 209, the Court noted that the Supreme Court had held that the notification dated 04-03-2021 applied prospectively only to persons born in a foreign country after that date, and that petitioners and similarly placed OCI cardholders were entitled to rights conferred prior to the notification. The Court examined the notification itself which made a specific reference to OCI card holders appearing in National Eligibility cum Entrance Test, JEE (Mains), JEE (Advanced), or such other tests, and stated that the use of “such other tests” was wide enough to encompass any other counselling process of a similar nature such as JAC counselling. It was stated that JAC could not be viewed differently merely because it was not specifically named in the said notification.
The Court stated that even though JAC may operate as a counselling mechanism based on marks of a different exam, i.e. JEE (Mains), rather than an independent exam, such a distinction could not be used to eliminate candidates holding OCI card, who secured the same prior to 2021. It was stated that there is no intelligible differentia for excluding OCI card holders from the benefit of JAC while extending the same to similarly situated candidates in other admissions and counselling processes, and the Court held that the distinction had no rational nexus with the objective of regulating admissions.
The Court rejected the argument that failure to challenge the brochure barred relief, since the petitioner sought only to apply the Supreme Court’s ratio, not to alter the brochure’s academic criteria. The Court also rejected the legitimate expectation argument, holding such expectations of other candidates could not override the Supreme Court’s ratio, and that the fault lay with respondent No. 3 for failing to implement the judgment in its true letter, spirit, and intent.
It was found that the DASA alternative offered no assistance since the petitioner did not meet its foreign education requirement, calling this an attempt by respondent No. 3 to dodge the issue, leaving the petitioner in an anomalous situation of being ineligible for both DASA and JAC. The Court noted JAC Chandigarh’s brochure had incorporated the Supreme Court’s directions by creating categories OCI (I) and OCI (F) for pre and post 04-03-2021 cardholders, while JAC Delhi had not incorporated any such categorization, rendering the petitioner ineligible under both mechanisms despite completing his education in India and securing the requisite merit. It was noted that candidates ranked lower than the petitioner had been granted seats in the institution that the petitioner desired, and that a previous order of this Court dated 10-07-2026, whereby the petitioner was permitted to participate in counselling had been violated.
Hence, the petition was allowed and respondent 3 was directed to allot a seat to the petitioner in the institution corresponding to his rank, treating him as a Resident Indian National, within 2 weeks. The Court, citing S. Krishna Sradha v. State of A.P., (2020) 17 SCC 465, held that since the petitioner’s case was a rare one, in case the need arises, a supernumerary seat could be created in his favour. Thus, the writ petition was disposed of.
Along with the writ petition, a contempt petition was also filed for violation of the order dated 10-07-2026. The Court found that despite its order directing respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in JAC Counselling and allot a seat corresponding to his rank, the petitioner had not been allowed to participate even after three rounds of counselling, while candidates with lower merit had secured admission in the desired institute and course.
The Court held that compliance could not be reduced to a mere formality, and that failing to consider the petitioner’s candidature had rendered its direction illusory and caused grave prejudice to him. The petition was disposed of in view of the abovementioned directions. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to revive the petition if the order was not complied with.
