"No Intelligible Differentia": Delhi High Court Strikes Down Mandatory CET Clause for Private Diploma Institutes

The Delhi High Court has set aside Clause 9 of the Information Bulletin issued by the Board of Technical Education (BTE), Delhi, which made the Common Entrance Test (CET) compulsory solely for private diploma institutions for the 2026–27 academic session.

It was observed that enforcing two parallel admission mechanisms—Class 10th merit for Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University (DSEU) institutes and mandatory CET for private BTE-affiliated institutes—for the exact same diploma qualifications is ex-facie arbitrary and lacks a rational nexus with the objective of admitting competent students.

The Court ruled that placing an additional burden on private institutions and prospective candidates violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and accordingly permitted the petitioner institute to fill its remaining vacant and management quota seats based on Class 10th examination marks.

The Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held, "This classification is ex-facie arbitrary as the students who seek admission in private institutes are put to disadvantageous position in comparison to DSEU because of the mandatory criteria of CET is being applicable only to institutes under BTE. The respondent has created an arbitrary classification and no intelligible differentia has been made out...For the said reasons, the Clause No. 9 of the Information Bulletin issued by the respondent is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is hereby, set aside."

Advocate Aseem Mehrotra appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate Dhruv Rohatgi appeared for the Respondent

Brief Facts

The petitioner, a privately managed technical institution run by the Dr. R.N. Gupta Technical Education Society, was imparting diploma-level technical education with due approval from the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and affiliation with the Board of Technical Education (BTE), Delhi.

Following the enactment of the Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University Act, 2019, government polytechnic institutes were merged into Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University (DSEU), while private institutions like the petitioner remained affiliated with the BTE by default.

For the academic session 2026–27, the BTE issued an Information Bulletin containing Clause 9, which mandated a Common Entrance Test (CET) as a compulsory prerequisite for admission into full-time diploma courses in private BTE-affiliated institutes. However, DSEU-administered institutes offering identical diploma courses were permitted to admit students based on their Class 10th examination marks without requiring a CET.

Aggrieved by this differential treatment, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking certiorari to quash Clause 9 and a mandamus directing the respondent to permit admissions based on Class 10th marks.

Contentions of the Parties

The petitioner submitted that Clause 9 was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was contended that both DSEU institutes and BTE-affiliated private institutes offered the same diploma programs and imparted identical education. It was argued that placing an additional burden of a mandatory CET solely on private institutes under BTE, while exempting DSEU institutes, created an unjustified and discriminatory classification without any rational nexus to the objective of student admission.

The respondent relied upon Section 13 of the Delhi Diploma Level Technical Education Institutions Act, 2007, which prescribed that admissions to diploma-level technical institutions ought to be conducted through a CET by a designated agency. It was submitted that DSEU had served as the designated agency in previous years but declined to conduct the CET for BTE-affiliated institutes for the relevant session, prompting BTE to make mandatory CET arrangements independently for its affiliated private institutions.

Observations of the Court

The High Court observed that there existed no intelligible differentia to treat DSEU-affiliated institutes and BTE-affiliated institutes differently regarding their entry assessment mechanisms.

The Court held that the division between the two categories of institutions was merely an administrative decision of the Government of NCT of Delhi, rather than an option exercised by the private institutes.

Relying on settled constitutional precedents, including State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) and S. Seshachalam v. Bar Council of T.N. (2014), the Court reiterated that while reasonable classification is permissible under Article 14, class legislation is forbidden.

The Court noted that creating two parallel admission mechanisms—Class 10th merit for DSEU institutes and mandatory CET for BTE private institutes—for the exact same diploma qualifications lacked a rational nexus with the objective of admitting competent students. The selective enforcement of Section 13 of the 2007 Act against private institutes was deemed ex-facie arbitrary, as it placed candidates seeking admission to private institutes at a distinct disadvantage.

The Court quashed the Impugned  Clause No. 9 of the Information Bulletin issued by the respondent was declared violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and was accordingly set aside.

The Court held, "The substance of classification in this present case clearly violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner and the similarly situated institutions are performing similar functions as those which are under DSEU. There are two different parallel mechanisms for admission being the CET on one hand and Class Xth marks without CET on the other. The two different parallel mechanisms for institutions offering same diploma course have no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, which is granting admissions to competent and eligible students."

The Court directed that candidates who had already been allotted seats in the petitioner institute through the CET conducted for the 2026–27 academic session were not to be disturbed.

The Court granted liberty to the petitioner institute to fill any remaining vacant seats (including seats under the management quota) for the 2026–27 academic session on the basis of Class 10th examination results.

The writ petition was disposed of in the aforementioned terms.

Cause Title: Aditya Institute of Technology Through Its Founder-Cum-Chairman Devendra Gupta v. Government Of Nct Of Delhi [Neutral Citation: 2026 DHC 6091]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocates Aseem Mehrotra and Deeksha Mehrotra

Respondent: Advocates Dhruv Rohatgi, Chandrika Sachdeva and Dhruv Kumar

Click here to read/download the Judgment