Changes In Admission Form Can't Be Allowed After Submission As Competitive Exams Must Be Concluded Expeditiously : Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that no changes can be permitted in an admission form once it has been submitted, particularly in the context of competitive examinations. The Court underscored that it is necessary to ensure "expeditious" conclusion of the selection process.

The Court dismissed the plea challenging the Admission Policy wherein the changes in the Admission Form after submission of the application  was not allowed.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry said, "The rules do not appear to be arbitrary since in competitive examinations, where lakhs of applicants participate, such an undertaking is necessary to be taken from all applicants so that the process of selection is concluded expeditiously and unhindered by any such omissions or commissions as raised in this petition."

It is trite in law that no benefit can be granted on the ground solely of compassion and sympathy, especially, under the inherent power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. the Court further added.

The petition was moved by an aspirant for admission to the Five Year Integrated Programme in Management (IPM) for which application form by the petitioner was filled, where he has mentioned the IPMAT Details as 25007355, whereas it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the correct number is 2509577.

Counsel, appearing for respondent, referred to the Admission Policy for Domestic Applicants, especially, to a clause relating to application procedure which, inter-alia, provided:

"No subsequent changes will be effective for IPM-AT 2025 and any subsequent selection process of the IIMs...No change in the category will be entertained once the application is submitted.”

The Court noted that, "it is obvious that no correction in the application form is permissible under the relevant rules governing the procedure of admission."

Observing that, "It is unfortunate that the petitioner filled up the wrong number and, therefore, has to suffer," the Court dismissed the plea.

However the bench added that, "the petitioner can always participate in the examination of 2026."

Mr. Manoj Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.

Title: Atharv Sharma, Minor through his Natural Guardian & Father Sh. Kuldeep Sharma v. State of Punjab and others

Click here ton read/download the order