10 July 2024 Education >> Miscellaneous  

In a recent writ petition of Siddhant Mahesh Rane v/s Indian Institute of Science, Through its Director, a prospective student challenged the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore, regarding his ineligibility for admission to the Bachelor of Science (Research) Programme for the academic year 2024-25. The petitioner argued against a communication from the Institute that stated his application could not be considered due to his late submission.

According to the admission notice released on March 27, 2024, applicants were required to submit their online applications between April 1 and May 7, 2024. This window was subsequently extended to May 14, 2024. However, the petitioner submitted his application on June 9, 2024, well past the final deadline.

The petitioner claimed that his All India Rank of 10 in the IISER Aptitude Test (IAT) 2024 made him eligible for admission, asserting that he should be allowed to participate in the admission process despite the late submission. He further contended that his application had not been considered due to a failure to pay the application fee of ?500.

In response, the Institute clarified that the petitioner’s application was not rejected due to non-payment but rather due to the submission date. The admission office received over 11,180 applications before the final deadline, and allowing the petitioner’s late application would undermine the established deadline for all applicants. The Institute highlighted an email from the petitioner, dated June 24, 2024, in which he acknowledged missing the application deadline and expressed unawareness about the necessity of submitting a separate application.

The legal assessment emphasized the importance of adhering to application deadlines. The court noted that all applications received by the deadline would be considered, and since the petitioner submitted his application after this period, he could not be accommodated. While the petitioner’s All India Rank was commendable, the court maintained that it could not grant relief solely based on sympathy, as doing so would unjustly disadvantage other applicants who complied with the submission timeline.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the necessity of strict adherence to application deadlines and leaving the parties to bear their own costs. This ruling underscores the importance of timely applications in competitive academic settings, reinforcing that deadlines are crucial for maintaining fairness among all applicants.