Jayesh Kashyap & Anr v. Jawaharlal Nehru University

O R D E R %

20.01.2026

¶1This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayer(s):- "a)Quash the Orders dated 10.09.2025, 22.10.2025 and

28.10.2025 and direct the Respondent University to allow the Petitioners to continue in the 3rd semester;"

¶2The facts are that on 28.02.2024 the respondent university released the Prospectus for the Academic Session 2024-2025 stating that the B.A. (Hons.) Course will span across 4 years/8 semesters, which is in line with the National Education Policy, 2020 ("NEP 2020").

¶3The petitioners took the Common Universities Entrance Test (CUET) and were admitted for the Academic Session of 2024-2025 in the School of Language, Literature and Culture Studies at the respondent university. The petitioners are currently pursuing B.A(Hons.) German at the respondent university. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

¶4The petiti university semester, ("Academ Committe

¶5Subseque

10.09.202 disallowe said impu ioners completed their first year, how y have restricted the petitioners from by citing Clause No. 9.1 of the A mic Ordinances") of the respondent un ee dated 15.10.2024. ently, the respondent university vid 25,

22.10.2025 and

28.10.2025 ( ed the petitioners from continuing th ugned orders are extracted below:- wever, the respondent m continuing in third Academic Ordinances niversity provided by a de its Orders dated ("impugned orders") e third semester. The The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

¶6Aggrieved by the actions of the respondent university, the petitioners have filed the present petition.

¶7Mr. Chimni, learned counsel for the petitioners, draws my attention to the Prospectus for the Academic Session 2024-2025 of the respondent university under which the petitioners had sought admission and states that the petitioners have been enrolled under 4 year B.A. (Hons.) Programme as per NEP 2020.He further draws my attention to the Academic Ordinances of the respondent university and more particularly Clauses No. 7.2, 8.4 and 9.1 under the heading "Ordinance relating to the award of B.A. (Hons.), B.A. (Pass) degrees", which read as under:- "7. Credit requirements: xxxxxxxx

7.2 Ordinarily a course shall be given in three/four contact hours a week and the credits for these courses shall be as follows: 'C' level courses 2 credits 'B' level courses 3 credits Provided that the Board of Studies of the School may, on the recommendation of the Centre(s), allot less or more credits to a particular course. xxxxxxxx Evaluation: xxxxxxxx

8.4 The students shall be graded in each course on a 10 point scale, that is: The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. Grade Grade Point A+ A A-B+ B B-C+ C C-F xxxxxxxx

9.Grade Point Requirement/Minimum standard

9.1 A student joining the 1st semester of the six semester programme will be required to maintain a CGPA of 3.00 in the core Courses at the end of second semester and thereafter. A student joining the 3rdsemester of six semester programme will also be required to maintain a CGPA of 3.00 in core courses at the end of the 4thsemester and thereafter."

¶8Per contra, Mr. Kumar learned counsel for the respondent university, states that the petitioners failed to fulfil the minimum CGPA requirement as per the Academic Ordinance and more particularly as per Clause No. 9.1 of the Academic Ordinance (reproduced above). The NEP 2020 prescribes a credit-based framework for undergraduate The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. programs, however, it does not preclude universities from setting academic performance benchmarks such as minimum CGPA thresholds. The University Grants Commission ("UGC") guidelines under NEP 2020 emphasize minimum total credit requirement, but is silent on specific semester-wise CGPA cutoffs. He further states that Clause No. 9.1 the Academic Ordinance was originally framed for the six-semester program, however, the B.A. (Hons.) program in the 2024-25 academic year under NEP 2020 provides for a eight semesters program. Hence, the core principle of Clause No. 9.1 i.e., requirement of maintaining a minimum CGPA has been retained.

¶9I have heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶10Mr. Chimni, learned counsel for the petitioners, has drawn my attention to the mark sheet of the petitioner No. 1, which is extracted below:- The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

¶11A perusal of themark sheet of the petitioner No. 1 (extracted above) shows that the in the first 3 subjects, the petitioner No. 1 has attained C+ Grade, which as per the respondent university Academic Ordinances translates to 3 Grade points and it is on this basis that the petitioners have not been promoted to the third semester.

¶12In the present case, the respondent university is adopting a pick and choose policy.The respondent university is bound by the Curriculum and Credit Framework for Undergraduate Programmes laid down by the UGC, which categorically categorises Letter Grade 'C' equivalent to 5 Grade Points. The relevant portion of the same is extracted below:- The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

¶13It is settle individual observed Kendriya Hon'ble Hindu U 8830/201 "5. I other Com ed law that parent framework and re l university/ school extant rules and by a Coordinate Bench of this Cour Vidyalaya, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7 Supreme Court in Dr. Dharmendra University Thr. Its Vice Chancellor, 6, order dated 27.11.2025, observed as It is needless to say that the responden r University who are governed under mmission Regulation, 2013, as amended egulations prevail over d regulations, as also rt in Aryan Kumar v. 7093. Additionally, the a Kumar v. Banaras in Civil Appeal No. s under:- nt-University or any r University Grants d from time to time, The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. are enjoined and obligated to follow the University Grants Commission guidelines."

¶14Applying the said principles to the present case, the respondent university cannot arbitrarily and unilaterally ignore the parent framework i.e., Curriculum and Credit Framework for Undergraduate Programmes laid down by the UGC and change the grading system.

¶15There is no concept of C+, or A-under the Letter Grade and Grade points as per Curriculum and Credit Framework for Undergraduate Programmes laid down by the UGC, as extracted above.

¶16The respondent university is also following the 4 year course as mandated by the UGC framework.Additionally, it is only the UGC framework, which mandates 4 credit points, as shown in the mark sheet of the petitioners (extracted above). Whereas, the respondent university's marking system only gives 2/3 credits as per Clause No.

7.2, as reproduced above.

¶17From the aforesaid, it is abundantly clear that by and large, the respondent university is following the guidelines/framework of the UGC, as it is mandatorily required to do. Only the Letter Grade and Grade Points has been introduced by the respondent university, which it cannot be so permitted.

¶18Additionally, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a judgement passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Preeti Umarao v. Jawaharlal Nehru University, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7501, wherein it was held:- "9. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that keeping in view the admitted facts The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. which clearly show that the prospectus for the admission was issued by respondent no. 1 in February, 2016 itself i.e. much before the Regulations of 2016 were issued or notified, the present petition is liable to succeed. I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the parties that once the admission process had started, the eligibility conditions and other conditions stated in the prospectus cannot be altered to the determent the students, who apply pursuant to the said prospectus. In this context, reference may be made on the paras 15 & 16 of the decisions of this Court in Varun Kumar Agarwal (supra):— "15. In Indu Gupta v. Director Sports, Punjab, AIR 1999 P&H 319 (FB), the Full Bench in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 has expressed thus:

¶9A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Raj Singh v. Maharshi Dayanand University, (1994) 4 Recent Services Judgments, 289 disapproved the liberal construction of the terms and conditions of the brochure and specified the need for their strict adherence to avoid unnecessary prejudice to the candidate or the authority during the course of admission. The bench approved that the eligibility for admission to a course has to be seen according to the prospectus issued before the entrance test examination and that the admission has to be made on the basis of the instructions given in the prospectus having the force of law. … The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

¶10Subsequently, another Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rahul Prabhakar v. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar, 1997

(3) RSJ 475: (AIR 1998 P&H 18) recapitulated the entire law on the subject. The Full Bench was considering the same brochure for the previous year of the Punjab Technical University. The Court held as under: "A Full Bench of this Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab (1993) 4 Serv LR 673 had to consider the scope and binding force of the provisions contained in the prospectus. The Bench took the view that the prospectus issued for admission to a course, has the force of law and it was not open to alteration. In Raj Singh v. Maharshi Dayanand University, 1994 (4) R.S.J. 289 another Full Bench of this Court took the view that a candidate will have to be taken to be bound by the information supplied in the admission form and cannot be allowed to take a stand that suits him at a given time. The Full Bench approved the view expressed in earlier Full Bench that eligibility for admission to a course has to be seen according to the prospectus issued before the Entrance Examination and that the admission has to be made on the basis of instructions given in the prospectus, having the force of law. Again Full Bench of this Court in Sachin Gaur v. Punjab University, 1996 (1) RSJ 1: (AIR 1996 P&H 109) took the view that there has to be a cut off date provided for admission and the same cannot be changed afterwards. These views The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. expressed by earlier Full Benches have been followed in CWP No. 6756 of 1996 by the three of us Constituting another Full Bench. Thus, it is settled law that the provisions contained in the information brochure for the Common Entrance Test 1997 have the force of law and have to be strictly complied with. No modification can be made by the court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Whenever a notification calling for applications, fixes date and time within which applications are to be received whether sent through post or by any other mode that time schedule has to be complied with in letter and spirit. If the application has not reached the coordinator or the competent authority as the case may be the same cannot be considered as having been filed in terms of the provisions contained in the prospectus or Information Brochure. Applications filed in violation of the terms of the brochure have only to be rejected."

¶11The cumulative effect of the above well enunciated principles of law, is that the terms and conditions of the brochure where they used pre-emptory language cannot be held to be merely declaratory. They have to be and must necessarily to be treated as mandatory. Their compliance would be essential otherwise the basic principle of fairness in such highly competitive entrance examinations would stand frustrated. Vesting of discretion in an individual in such matters, to waive or dilute the stipulated conditions of the brochure would per se introduce the element of The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. discrimination, arbitrariness and unfairness. Such unrestricted discretion in contravention to the terms of the brochure would decimate the very intent behind the terms and conditions of the brochure, more particularly, where the cut off date itself has been provided in the brochure. The brochure has the force of law. Submission of applications complete in all respects is a sine qua non to the valid acceptance and consideration of an application for allotment of seats in accordance with the terms prescribed in the brochure.

¶16We have referred to the aforesaid decisions only to highlight that the conditions stipulated in the prospectus are guidelines for all concerned and everyone is required to follow the same in letter and spirit and not act in transgression. The hopes and aspirations of the students, who came within the zone of merit, cannot be scuttled by changing the prospectus by way of introducing a corrigendum. A change in the conditions of the prospectus can be conceived of and allowed if such power is specifically reserved while making the prospectus public as in that case, no one can think of having a right. In that event, the same could be capable of change. In the case at hand, in the absence of a power reserved in the prospectus, in our considered opinion, the same could not have been altered by way of corrigendum. It is interesting to note that by issuing a corrigendum, the scenario of results changed because further results were published and The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. more candidates were called. This, according to us, is nothing but an accommodation. The AIIMS may have been conferred the privilege of institutional preference, but that would not enable AIIMS to change the prospectus in the manner it has been done. Thus, the action of the AIIMS on this score is vitiated and despite the labored attempt by the learned Counsel for the AIIMS, we cannot give the stamp of approval to the action of the institution."

¶10I also find merit in the submission made by Ms. Monika Arora that even if the admission procedure had been completed only after the issuance/notification of the UGC Regulations, 2016 the said regulations could not be made applicable to the students, who had admittedly taken admission pursuant to prospectus issued in February, 2016 wherein it had been specifically stated that the admission was governed by the UGC, Regulations 2009. …" (Emphasis added)

¶19Similarly, in the present case, once the petitioners have taken admission in the respondent university on the basis of the Prospectus for the Academic Session 2024-2025, which states that the B.A. (Hons.) Course will span across 4 years/8 semesters and which is in line with the NEP 2020, the conditions stated in the prospectus cannot be altered and the same applies to them.

¶20For the said reasons,the petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 10.09.2025, 22.10.2025 and 28.10.2025 are set aside. The The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. petitioners are permitted to continue in their 3rd Semester.

¶21The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with pending applications, if any. JASMEET SINGH, J JANUARY 20, 2026 / (MS) The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 18526/2025& CM APPL. 76835/2025 JAYESH KASHYAP & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Abhik Chimni, Mr. Ayan Dasgupta Samarendra, Mr. Gurpal Singh Ms. Pranjal Abrol, Ms. Moksha Sharma, Advs. versus JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY .....Respondent Through: Ms. Deepshikha Kumar, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH