Aditya Prakash Vs Union of India

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION SECRETARIAT, TULLUR, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH

¶13

THE CHAIRPERSON, JOINT ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE 2025 INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH (USER) TIRUPATI, VENKATAGIRI ROAD, TIRUPATI - 517619.

¶14

UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 122-C, SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI-110001.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in

¶17

2

¶18

wrongfully excluding the Petitioner from participating from the 6th round of counselling for admission into the BS- MS Dual Degree Programme for the academic year 2025-26, scheduled between 0609-2025 and 08-09-2025, on untenable and hyper-technical grounds. This, notwithstanding the fact that the Petitioner had duly qualified in the USER Aptitude Test - 2025 securing an All-India Rank of 6423 and had promptly addressed an e-mail representation dated 01- 09-2025 requesting consideration of his candidature at least after having been unjustly deprived of the Float option in the 5th round and excluded from the 6th round and subsequent of counselling and consequently, be pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent to permit the Petitioner to participate in the Seventh round of counselling scheduled from 06-09-2025 to 08-09- 2025, and also in the subsequent rounds of counselling, if the Petitioner so chooses,

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to issue an appropriate interim direction directing the 2nd Respondent to forthwith permit the Petitioner to participate in the Seventh round of counselling scheduled from 06-09-2025 to 08-09-2025 for admission into the BSMS Dual Degree Programme for the academic year 2025-26, so as to enable him to exercise his institutional choice in accordance with his merit position, pending disposal of the Writ Petition

¶21

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to vacate the interim orders dt.04-09-2025 passed in W.P.No.23687/2025 and pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

¶27

3

¶28

2. TURAGA SAI SURYA

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO: 22769/2025

¶30

Between:

¶31

MR. SAI SRIVEN YARABOTULA, S/O LINGANNA YARABOTULA AGED 17 YEARS 11 MONTHS, OCCSTUDENT R/O D. NO. 6 A-C 332, OMBR LAYOUT, BANASWADI, MOHAN RESIDENCY, BENGALORE, KARNATAKA - 560043. REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER SRI. LINGANNA YARABOTULA

¶32

...PETITIONER

¶33

AND

¶34

MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION 122-C, SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI-110001.

¶35

THE CHAIRPERSON, JOINT ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE 2025 INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH (USER) TIRUPATI VENKATAGIRI ROAD, TIRUPATI - 517619

¶36

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶37

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in refusing to consider the candidature of the Petitioner for participation in the 6th round of counselling for admission into the BS-MS Dual Degree Programme for the academic year 2025-26, scheduled from 31-082025 to 02-09-2025, on hyper- technical grounds, despite the Petitioner having duly qualified in the USER Aptitude Test - 2025 with a commendable rank and despite his e-mail representations dated 18-08-2025 and 20-08-2025 seeking consideration after being deprived of the Float option in the 3rd round, as arbitrary, illegal unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, and opposed to the principles of natural justice and consequently, be pleased to direct the 2nd. Respondent to

¶38

4

¶39

permit the Petitioner to participate in the 6th round of counselling scheduled from 31.08.2025 to 02.09.2025, and also in the subsequent rounds of counselling, if the Petitioner so chooses, and pass

¶40

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶41

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to issue an appropriate interim direction directing the 2"^ Respondent to forthwith permit the Petitioner to participate in the 6^^ round of counselling scheduled from 31-08-2025 to 02-09-2025 for admission into the BS-MS Dual Degree Programme for the academic year 2025-26, so as to enable him to exercise his institutional choice in accordance with his merit position, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass

¶42

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶43

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 28-08- 2025, in W.P.No.22769 of 2025 and pass

¶44

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶45

1.SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI

¶46

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶47

JUPUDI V K YAGNADUTT(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

¶48

TURAGA SAI SURYA

¶49

WRIT PETITION NO: 23106/2025

¶50

Between:

¶51

ADITYA PRAKASH, S/O PRAKASH PN, AGED 19 YEARS, OCC STUDENT, R/O SHOPRA BHAVAN, HOSDURG KANHANGAD SOUTH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, KERALA671531.

...PETITIONER

AND

5

UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 122-C, SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI-110001.

¶56

THE CHAIRPERSON, JOINT ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE 2025 INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH (USER) TIRUPATI, VENKATAGIRI ROAD, TIRUPATI - 517619.

¶57

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶58

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in wrongfully excluding the .Petitioner from participating from the 5th round of counselling for admission into the BS- MS Dual Degree Programme for the academic year 2025-26, scheduled between 2508-2025 and 27-08-2025, on untenable and hyper-technical grounds. This, notwithstanding the fact that the Petitioner had duly qualified in the USER Aptitude Test - 2025 securing an All-India Rank of 12082 and had promptly addressed an e-mail representation dated 25- 08-2025 requesting consideration of his candidature at least after having been unjustly deprived of the Float option in the 4th round and excluded from the 5th rounds and subsequent of counselling-and consequently, be pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent to permit the Petitioner to participate in the 6th round of counselling scheduled from 31.08.2025 to 02.09.2025, and also in the subsequent rounds of counselling, if the Petitioner so chooses, and pass

¶59

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶60

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to issue an appropriate interim direction directing the 2nd Respondent to forthwith permit the Petitioner to participate in the 6th round of counselling scheduled from 31-08-2025 to 02-09-2025 for admission into the BS-MS Dual Degree Programme for the academic year 2025-26, so as to enable him to exercise his institutional choice in

¶61

6

¶62

accordance with his merit position, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass

¶63

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶64

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dt.30-08-2025 passed in W.P.No.23106/2025 and pass

¶65

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶66

1.SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI

¶67

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶68

1.M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)

¶69

2.TURAGA SAI SURYA

¶70

The Court made the following:

¶71

7

¶72

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶73

W.P.Nos.23687, 22769, 23106 OF 2025

¶74

O R D E R :

¶75

The present batch of Writ Petitions are filed questioning the refusal of the candidature of Petitioners from participating in the 6^th round of counselling for admission into BS-MS Dual Degree Program for the academic year 2025-2026, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶76

As the issue in these Writ Petitions is common, with the consent of learned counsel, the matters were taken up for hearing and are disposed of by this common order.

¶77

W.P.No.22769 of 2025 is taken up as lead case and the facts are as under:

¶78

The Petitioner had appeared for the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (for short, „IISER‟) Aptitude Test, 2025, on 25.05.2025 for admission to the BS-MS Dual Degree Program for the academic year 2025-2026, which was conducted by Respondent No.2. The IISERs have status of Institute of National Importance under the National Institutes of Technology, Science Education and Research (NITSER) Act,

¶79

8

¶80

The Petitioner had secured an All India Rank of 3465 to get admission to one of the seven (07) IISER‟s.

¶81

As per the procedure, the counseling process to get entrance into the IISER‟s is online, and the aspirants are provided with options to either „accept‟ or „float‟ or no option can be exercised by the aspirant as and when “offer” of admission is given and on exercise of “accept” or “no option”, the aspirant will not be considered for further rounds of counseling. Only when a „float‟ option is exercised, the aspirant would be considered in the next round of counseling.

¶82

In the present case, it is stated that in the 3^rd round of counseling, the „float‟ option was inexplicably absent from the counseling interface, though the offer letter was downloaded. As the Petitioner could not exercise “float” option for consideration, the Petitioner was excluded from the next round of counseling. It was stated that an e-mail dated 18.08.2025 was addressed to the Respondent No.2 immediately bringing to their notice the nonavailability of the „float‟ option in the admission counseling process that was conducted online. There was no response. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶83

9

¶84

Counter affidavit was filed by Respondent No.2, denying all the allegations of technical glitch as alleged by the Petitioner and a report of the Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) dated 28.08.2025 was relied upon to confirm the fact that there is no technical glitch. It was further submitted that the counseling process for entrance into IISER will be conducted online, and the meritorious candidates would receive admission offers by logging into the portal. The procedure of online counseling is that, upon receipt of the offer, the meritorious students are entitled either to „accept and float‟ or „accept and freeze‟ or „reject‟ so as to proceed with the next round of counseling, and in case no option is chosen by the aspirant/student, the said individual will be excluded from

¶85

the counseling process. As the Petitioner had not chosen to exercise the option, the Petitioner was excluded from the next round of counseling.

¶86

Learned counsel for Petitioner reiterates the contentions in

¶87

the writ affidavit regarding the technical glitch in the counselling process and submits that there is no reason for the Petitioner to not choose, or wantonly exclude himself from the counselling process after appearing in the entrance examination and after

¶88

10

¶89

securing meritorious rank. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that the technical report of TCS which was relied upon by the Respondent No.2 is not sufficient.

¶90

Sri Shireesh Gupta, learned counsel representing Sri Sai Surya, learned counsel for Respondent No.2, would submit that never in the history of the admission process that was conducted online such an allegation was raised by any student and relied on the technical report that was furnished by TCS stating that the lapse is on the part of the student rather than the counselling process. Learned counsel further submitted that admissions are made to the institutes of national importance and there should not be any suspicion in the minds of the aspirants regarding the counseling process. However, learned counsel submits that the counseling process was concluded and even if the Writ Petition is dismissed, the seat of Petitioner cannot be offered to any other.

¶91

9. Heard the respective counsel.

¶92

The email of the TCS with regard to the technical glitch is extracted below:-

¶93

“Dear Sir,

¶94

We have verified the student's case regarding the Round 3 counselling process. Our findings are as follows:

¶95

11

¶96

In Round 2, the candidate was offered an IISER program and made the SAF payment and selected Accept & Float. In Round 3, the offer letter was successfully generated and made available to the candidate.

¶97

At this stage, the system displayed the standard options (Accept and Freeze / Accept and Float / Reject), as it does uniformly for all candidates.

¶98

Other candidates in Round 3 were able to view and select these options without any issue.

¶99

However, this candidate downloaded the offer letter but did not select any decision within the given timeline.

¶100

As per the counselling process rules, failure to submit a decision in the given round results in the candidature being treated as no action taken and not considered further in subsequent rounds. Therefore, we can confirm that this is not a technical issue, but rather due to no action being taken by the candidate in Round 3.

¶101

Please find the attached logs for your reference.”

¶102

The contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the

¶103

email of TCS is not sufficient and there was a technical glitch, cannot be believed, as there is a time frame of three (03) days for individuals to „accept and float‟ or „accept and freeze‟. Secondly, at the same time, other students who appeared in the entrance examination across the country had exercised their respective options and did not face any problem and therefore, the plea of technical glitch is unbelievable.

¶104

Be that as it may, pursuant to the interim order of this Court,

¶105

the Petitioner was permitted to participate in the next round of counseling and in furtherance thereto, the Petitioner had been admitted to an institute of his choice on the basis of his merit rank

¶106

12

¶107

in entrance examination. It is further stated that the Petitioner had completed one semester. At this stage, no purpose would be served in passing adverse orders against the Petitioner nor the seat can be offered to any other as counseling process was concluded. Therefore, the Writ Petitions are closed. No order as to costs.

¶108

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.

¶109

___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

¶110

Date: 11.02.2026 chs

¶111

13

¶112

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶113

186