Contractual Dispute Between Rehabilitation Council Of India & Organisers Of Aptitude Test Cannot Stall Admissions: Delhi High Court

Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that staying admissions would directly impact the academic and professional futures of thousands of specially abled candidates across the country.

The bench added that the specially abled candidates are a marginalised section of society, who are equally entitled to opportunities in education/ specialised skills for career enhancement. The court said:

“To my mind, in such matters, the welfare of candidates must be kept safe and at the forefront, as the primary objective of the learning system is to ensure that learning opportunities are not disrupted or denied on account of contractual disputes between parties as in the present case is. The academic sessions, career progression, and long-term rehabilitation of thousands of specially abled candidates are at stake. Any disruption in the admission process has a cascading effect as it not only delays commencement of classes, but it also causes distress, uncertainty, and loss of academic year, which cannot be compensated in monetary terms.”

The dispute between the parties was with respect to the preparation of the merit list following the All India Online Aptitude Test.

While the tender contract authorised the organiser to compile and publish the merit list, the Rehabilitation Council allegedly delayed approval of the organiser's merit list and eventually, unilaterally published its own merit list for counselling.

Thus alleging that the Council had overstepped, the organiser approached the High Court. It claimed exclusive contractual right to publish the counselling results and submitted that the Council had unlawfully attempted to curtail this right, in breach of the Agreement, thereby adversely affecting the lives of 48,000 specially abled candidates.

It sought to stall the admission process until the Arbitral Tribunal adjudicated the dispute.

The High Court took an adverse view of the Council's conduct, stating that it had been corresponding with the petitioner and urging the petitioner to take steps towards finalising the results. Despite the same, it suddenly took a unilateral decision to publish its own merit list, which is prima facie arbitrary and malafide.

“The said unilateral action of the respondent not only raises serious questions of arbitrariness but also cries foul of fairness…respondent was unable to answer as to why the list prepared by the petitioner was not accepted by the respondent and why there was delay in granting approval to the said list,” it said.

However, the Court refused to stall the counselling, stating, “nearly 48,000 specially abled candidates have registered for admission after a gap of two years. Their academic careers and future employability hinge upon timely commencement of the 2025-26 session. I cannot permit a stalemate situation between the petitioner and respondent to indefinitely stall the counselling and admission process. The larger public interest in ensuring continuity of education far outweighs the contractual disagreements between the parties…The balance of convenience, therefore, tilts heavily in favour of allowing the admission process to proceed in the interest of candidates, even if it means that the petitioner's contractual grievances are left to be resolved in arbitration.”

Appearance: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Tanuj Khurana, Mr. Honey Jain, Ashish Batra, Mr. Om Shelat, Advs. for Petitioner; Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. for Respondent

Case title: M/S ND Info Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Rehabilitation Council of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1204

Case no.: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 382/2025

Click here to read order