Nishant Khatri vs. Jawaharlal Nehru University

Nishant Khatri vs. Jawaharlal Nehru University
In the High Court of Delhi, New Delhi
W.P. (C) 3334 of 2018
Nishant Khatri
Jawaharlal Nehru University
Date of Judgement
13th February 2020
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher


The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has imposes cost on Jawaharlal Nehru University for complete lack of assistance. 

Facts of the Case:

Petitioner had applied for M.Sc Ph.D. integrated programme. Petitioner has obtained 35 marks out of 70. As per clause 3.2 of the admission policy, he was required to secure 35% of 70 marks fixed for the entrance exam, The additional affidavit filed by JNU in fact says that the eligibility marks that a candidate had to obtain was 25% of the 70 i.e. 17.50 marks. JNU has equated the programme for which the petitioner had applied to M.A. B.A. Hons. (Second year) and part time programmes. Counsel for JNU says that since there were only 8 vacancies, therefore, only 25 candidates were called. JNU has filled up 9 vacancies in the unreserved category whereas indicated above, according to them, there were only 8 vacancies available.


  • a. What were the eligibility marks that the candidates had to secure to be invited for the viva voce?
  • b. How many Candidates have been invited for the viva voce?
  • Out of the 25 candidates how many were called for the viva voce?

Arguments Advanced:

Arguments in favour of Petitioner:

  1. Petitioner repeated the facts of the case and argued in support of the facts.

Arguments in favour of the Respondent’s:

  1. As per Clause 3.3 of the Admission policy, they could call for viva voce, “around” three times the available vacancies. Counsel for JNU further says that since there were only 8 vacancies, therefore, only 25 candidates were called.
  2. Counsel for JNU has in defense has referred to Clause 6.4 of the admission policy which reads as follows: – “Candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC/PH category who are selected on their own merit with General Category candidates are not counted under reserved quota.
  3. JNU, says that, 1 vacancy available against the physically handicapped category was filled up by a candidate who fell in the unreserved category.


Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher Observed:

  1. There is merit in the submission of the petitioner that Clause 6.4 could have been taken recourse to by JNU only after candidates were selected after the viva voce was completed and not before.
  2. Insofar as the concerned which pertained to misalignment between the information contained in the merit list and the information obtained by the petitioner via the RTI route, no satisfactory answer has been given by the counsel for JNU.
  3. However, in view of the complete lack of assistance by JNU and the fact that the petitioner had to approach this Court for relief, JNU is directed to pay the petitioner towards costs Rs.75,000/-.


Hence, it is concluded that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has rightly imposed costs of Rs.75,000/- on Jawaharlal Nehru University for complete lack of assistance.

“The views of the authors are personal

Sumit Sanjay Ekbote
I am Sumit Sanjay Ekbote from Manikchand Pahade Law College, Aurangabad pursing BA.LLB. Since the beginning of my life as a law student I had a great liking in the Consumer Law. However, apart from Consumer Law I am also interested in Human Rights Law and Arbitration laws. In my free time I often watch Hollywood movies, Web series etc. I love to listen songs almost all the time of the day.