LLB Admissions- University Can't Be Compelled To Conduct Fresh Round Of Counselling For Unfilled Vacancies: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a University can't be compelled to issue a fresh round of counselling in its admission process.

The Court was considering a Letters Patent Appeal against dismissal of a Writ Petition by holding that the admission process has ended and no fresh round of counselling can be ordered.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, "Apart from the fact that Hon’ble Supreme Court has not appreciated the midstream admission of students, in Neelu Arora (supra) it has also observed that even if certain seats are not filled up for various reasons, that by itself, cannot be a ground to direct the University authorities to hold another round of counselling. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that in case such a process is adopted, there could be vacancies which may arise again requiring further filling up of such vacancies which may be a never ending process. This procedure was deprecated."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate Ankit Mittal, while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Mohinder J.S. Rupal.

Facts of the Case

The Delhi University had notified the commencement of LL.B. classes for the Academic Year 2025-26. It conducted Spot Round III and IV in August and September respectively. The Appellant, who belonged to the Other Backward Classes category alleged that after the Spot Round IV was closed, the DU deliberately concealed the status of 98 Unreserved (UR)/OBC seats which according to the appellant were still available.

The only contention raised by the Counsel for the Appellant was that there are a number of vacancies in the OBC category in respect of the LLB course which if disclosed correctly by the DU, would entitle the appellant for consideration in a fresh round of counselling and (ii) since the petitioner obtained 151 marks in the CUET Examination and the last cut-off marks in respect of OBC candidate in the Spot Round IV counselling were 155 marks, there is every possibility that the appellant would also be found entitled to admission in case another round of counselling is directed.

The Counsel further stated that the ratio of the judgment in Sumit Kumar Singh is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the reason that in Sumit Kumar Singh, the Appellant therein had approached the Court after the last round of counselling was over and the admission to the said course were closed. Whereas, in the present case, the Appellant had filed the underlying Writ Petition on October 04, 2025 and it was only due to the fortuitous circumstances of the Dussehra Vacation intervening, that the matter was actually listed on October 08, 2025.

It was thus averred that even though the admission process closed on September 30, 2025, the Appellant’s Writ Petition being listed on October 04, 2025 would not impede the rights of the Appellant who had approached the Court within time and before the closing of the admission process on the anvil of Doctrine of Relation filed.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset observed that the Appellant does not dispute having secured 151 marks in the CUET Examination while the cut-off marks for the candidate in OBC category that too in Spot Round IV counselling were 155 marks.

"In these circumstances, we are unable to appreciate as to on what basis the appellant seeks a Mandamus for a direction to the DU to conduct a Spot Round V counselling after the admission process is already over. In case such directions are passed, it would lead to an anomalous, incongruous and a never ending situation. In that, every other ineligible candidate, irrespective of the category, would approach the Courts for passing a direction to the University authorities to conduct further rounds of counselling till all the seats are exhausted, irrespective of the cut-off marks. It was this incongruous situation which led the Hon’ble Supreme Court to pass a judgment in Neelu Arora & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.: 2003 SCC OnLine SC 119, which was noted in the Sumit Kumar Singh (supra) in para 16 of the judgment", the Court held.

The Appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Neha Malav v. Dean (Admissions Branch), University of Delhi & Ors. 2025:DHC:9749-DB

Appearances:

Appellant- Advocates Ankit Mittal, Sachin

Respondent- Advocates Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Hardik Rupal, Aishwarya Malhotra, Tripta Sharma and Lopamudra Mahapatra

Click here to read/ download Order