Delhi HC Upholds Rule Allowing Institutions to Conduct Their Own Counselling for Management Quota Seats in Professional Colleges

The Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL challenging Rule 8(2)(a)(v) of the 2007 Delhi Professional Colleges Rules, holding that institutions may independently fill Management Quota Seats from CET-qualified candidates without subjecting those seats to centralised counselling.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, on 1 July 2026 dismissed a PIL filed by “Justice for All” that sought to strike down Rule 8(2)(a)(v) of the Delhi Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee and Other Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence) Rules, 2007. The petitioner argued that the rule, by permitting private unaided institutions to prepare their own merit lists and conduct separate counselling for 10% Management Quota Seats, was incompatible with the parent Act and allowed opaque, non-transparent admissions. The bench rejected that reading, holding that the scheme of the Act itself distinguishes between the 90% seats filled through centralised counselling and the 10% Management Quota Seats filled by the institution after advertising among CET-qualified candidates.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The petitioner, Justice for All, challenged Rule 8(2)(a)(v) of the Rules alongside the Admission Brochure issued for the Academic Session 2026–27. Two specific grievances drove the petition.

First, the Admission Brochure was said to permit de-reservation of reserved category seats and the conversion of Delhi Quota seats into Outside Delhi Quota seats at the time of Management Quota Admissions (MQS). Second, and more centrally to the legal argument, the petitioner contended that Rule 8(2)(a)(v) was ultra vires the Act because it allowed institutions to draw their own merit lists and hold their own counselling for MQS, rather than routing those seats through the common, centralised, online counselling process conducted by the designated agency under the Admission Regulatory Committee (ARC).

Additional prayers sought a cap removal on the two-round limit for MQS counselling, more online rounds to ensure all seats are filled on merit, and a mandatory Standard Operating Procedure for MQS admissions based on ARC recommendations dated 30 December 2025.

The Statutory Architecture of the Act

The Delhi Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee and Other Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence) Act, 2007 governs admissions to private professional colleges in Delhi. The Rules framed under Section 23 of the Act operationalise the admission scheme.

Section 12 of the Act deals with seat allocation and reservation. Section 12(a) fixes 10% of total seats in unaided institutions as MQS. Section 13 governs the manner of admission generally and requires that admissions be made through a Common Entrance Test (CET) conducted by the designated agency.

The petitioner's core argument rested on Section 2(d) of the Act, which defines CET as an entrance test for merit determination “followed by centralized counselling.” Counsel Mr. Khagesh B. Jha submitted that because CET by definition includes counselling, Rule 8(2)(a)(v) — which authorises institutions to prepare their own merit lists for MQS — violated Section 2(d). The proviso to Section 13 of the Act, however, carves out a distinct procedure for MQS: those seats are to be filled by the institution through advertisement from candidates who have already qualified the CET, on the basis of merit at the qualifying examination.

How the Bench Reasoned

The bench read Section 12 and Section 13 of the Act together, including the proviso to Section 13, and found the statutory scheme clear. For the 90% of seats outside the management quota, the designated agency conducts the CET, prepares the merit list, and holds centralised counselling. For the remaining 10% MQS, the proviso to Section 13 creates a separate track: the institution advertises, and then selects from CET-qualified candidates based on merit at the qualifying examination.

Accepting the petitioner's argument, the bench held, would render the proviso to Section 13 entirely redundant. If MQS were also to be filled through the designated agency's counselling process, there would be no purpose for a proviso that specifically empowers institutions to advertise and independently fill those seats.

The bench also addressed the petitioner's complaint that private unaided institutions conduct their counselling simultaneously — preventing a candidate from participating in counselling at more than one institution at a time — and that this arrangement is non-transparent and curtails a candidate's right to seek admission on merit. The bench found this did not make Rule 8(2)(a)(v) bad in law. The Act's scheme permits institutions to fill MQS after the designated agency completes counselling for the 90% seats. The proviso to Section 13 expressly empowers them to advertise and fill those seats from CET-qualified candidates.

On the Rule's relationship to the Act, the bench noted that Section 13 requires admissions to be made “in such manner as may be prescribed,” and Section 3(t) of the Act defines “prescribed” to mean prescribed by Rules made under the Act. The Rules, having been framed under Section 23, are squarely within that prescription. Rule 8(2)(a) and its sub-clause (v) set out the mode of admission for MQS: institutions draw a merit list and conduct admission counselling for branch allotment within a specified time. The bench found no inconsistency between this Rule and the parent statute.

Remaining Grievances Redirected to the ARC

Having rejected the challenge to Rule 8(2)(a)(v), the bench turned to the petitioner's other prayers — online counselling for MQS, removal of the two-round cap, and implementation of the ARC's Standard Operating Procedure recommendations of 30 December 2025.

The bench declined to issue those directions from the writ court and instead pointed the petitioner to the ARC constituted under Section 4 of the Act. Section 4(12) of the Act mandates the ARC to regulate admission procedures in institutions and to suggest guidelines to the government for fair, transparent, merit-based, and non-exploitative admissions. The bench held that the ARC, being a statutory body with that specific mandate, is the appropriate forum to address any discrepancy in the admission process.

The bench accordingly permitted the petitioner to make an exhaustive representation to the ARC within a fortnight from 1 July 2026, raising all grievances relating to alleged discrepancies in the admission process. If such a representation is made, the ARC is directed to consider it and take appropriate measures with expedition.

Order

The writ petition W.P.(C) 8439/2026 was disposed of on 1 July 2026. The challenge to Rule 8(2)(a)(v) of the Delhi Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee and Other Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence) Rules, 2007 was rejected. The petitioner was permitted to file a representation before the ARC within a fortnight. The ARC was directed to consider any such representation with expedition. The pending application CM No. 39447/2026 was also disposed of.