The petitioners, who have performed well in the Common Entrance Test (CET), registered for counseling with GGSIPU after paying the requisite fees. Despite their efforts, they have been unable to secure admission. Their primary grievance centers on the university's notification dated August 29, 2024, which stipulates that only candidates with ranks equal to or better than the last admitted candidates from prior online counseling rounds can be considered for admissions during the special offline counseling.

The crux of the petitioner's argument is against Clause 4 of the notification, which states:

"The conduct of the Special Round of OFFLINE Counseling is to facilitate those candidates only who have not been able to get admission for certain reasons in the Online Counseling Process held so far..."

This clause effectively caps the merit ranking for candidates, which the petitioners argue is arbitrary and prevents many deserving candidates from gaining admission, leaving many seats vacant.

The petitioners contend that the imposition of this merit capping during the special round of counseling is unreasonable. They assert that it undermines the fundamental rights of meritorious candidates, as it prevents them from pursuing opportunities in better colleges, even when those seats remain unfilled. They reference a Supreme Court ruling in Modern Dental College and Research Centers v. State of Madhya Pradesh to support their claim that the restrictions imposed by the university are excessive and arbitrary.

Furthermore, the petitioners highlight that many qualified candidates from the CET merit list remain unadmitted due to this cap. They argue that unfilled seats are then allotted to candidates from the Central University Entrance Test (CUET), which they believe is an unjust allocation of resources.

In response, GGSIPU's counsel argues that the university is operating within the legal framework established by the GGSIP University Act and related statutes. They assert that the university has consistently followed this merit-based admission process and that the "no rank violation" policy is necessary to maintain academic standards and merit. They reference previous court rulings, which upheld similar policies in past admissions cycles.

The university maintains that it is crucial to ensure that less meritorious candidates do not gain admission at the expense of those with higher ranks. They argue that this approach is not only legal but essential for preserving the integrity of the admission process.

After reviewing the arguments from both sides, the court upheld the university's policy regarding merit rank capping. The court reiterated that the "no rank violation" principle is in place to ensure that admissions reflect merit and that the university has the authority to set such policies. The court referenced a prior ruling that had dismissed a similar challenge, indicating that the university's admission practices are sound and within its purview.

The court also noted that the university is not compelled to follow the recent Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC), as it pertains only to central universities, while GGSIPU is a state university.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, reaffirming the university's right to establish its admission criteria and uphold academic merit. This case highlights the ongoing tension between academic standards and access to education, illustrating the complexities of admission policies in higher education institutions. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, it remains critical for universities to balance merit-based admissions with equitable access to education for all deserving candidates.