HC directs IIT-Bombay to consider admitting student on supernumerary seat – education
In a setback for a 23-year-old who aspires to be admitted to a diploma course at the Center for Industrial Design at the Indian Institute of Technology in Bombay (IIT-B), the Bombay High Court has refused to give instructions to the Institute. admit the student. The court, in ruling the matter on Friday, held that although it was initially inclined to help the would-be student who is in the reserved category, it was not doing so as both the institute and the applicant were equally responsible for the situation. However, the court ordered the Director of IIT-B to consider admitting the applicant this year, as it would elevate the institute’s image and not defame it by creating a supernumerary seat in the current academic year or accommodating it the next year.
The aspiring student who had completed the institute’s selection process on July 21, had approached the court after failing to get the institute’s bullying email on August 2 and thus lost his place. The email was sent by the institute to all shortlisted students and asked them to complete the admission process before the August 6 deadline.
During the hearing, the institute admitted that the email had not reached the applicant student, but claimed that if the student had been diligent and checked the IIT-B website, they would have found out about their selection on the final list and would have secured your seat. In light of this, the institute argued that due to the failure of the student, the institute could not be criticized and ordered to admit the student late.
On Friday, the divisional court of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Girish Kulkarni, while delivering its ruling on the petition filed by Prathmesh Pedamkar through lawyer Ashraf Shaikh, observed that after hearing from both parties it was not It would require him to interfere and issue instructions to the institution to admit the student.
While arguing, Shaikh had claimed that his client had approached the court after being directed by the Navi Mumbai police cyber cell. They had said that he could only find out if the IIT-B had sent him the bullying email as they claimed if there was a court order. Shaikh had also presented that after the institute had changed its entire admissions procedure due to the pandemic, it had been sending emails and phone messages to all applicants about each stage of the admissions process. His client had responded to all emails and completed his intake process which ended on July 21. Subsequently, the institute reported that successful candidates would be intimidated by email.
Shaikh had claimed that it was not until August 21 that his client contacted the institute to inform him that he had been shortlisted and that an email had been sent to him on August 2. However, when he looked up the details of the original sent email, the institute refused. to share and thus approached the Navi Mumbai cybercell.
While opposing the petition, IIT-B advocate Arsh Mishra had presented that although the email had been blocked by the spam filter and did not reach the applicant, he could have consulted the website and learned of his selection. Like 18 other applicants who had not received the email. Mishra claimed that 14 applicants after finding their names on the institute’s website had secured their admission and therefore Pedamkar could not claim any relief.
After hearing the presentations, the court had initially observed that he wanted to help the student and had asked the institute to admit the student in the current academic year or the following year without the applicant going through the admissions process the next year. However, after the institute refused, the court requested earlier orders from the Supreme Court and other higher courts ordering institutes to admit a student in the current academic year by creating a supernumerary seat. Shaikh had provided orders from both the SC and other HCs directing the institutes to admit a student who was denied admission through no fault of his own.
The court ordered the institute to transmit its decision to the student within four weeks and also allowed the student to seek appropriate redress if he was not admitted by the institute.