Parshavanath v. AICTE: Second PGCET Counselling Allowed

Supreme Court Allows Second PGCET Counselling Round in Karnataka, Extends Last Date to 14 November

Parshavanath Charitable Trust & Ors. v. All India Council for Technical Education & Ors. (In the matter of Karnataka Examinations Authority) Decided 29 October 2026

Published: 13 November 2026 · NyayVidhan · 2 min read

In Parshavanath Charitable Trust & Ors. v. All India Council for Technical Education & Ors., the Supreme Court allowed the Karnataka Examinations Authority to hold a further round of counselling and seat allotment for PGCET 2026-27 against vacant MBA, MCA and M.Tech seats. It extended the last date of PG counselling from 14.09.2026 to 14.11.2026, directed that classes commence from 15.11.2026, and said the order shall not be treated as precedent (paras 4-6).

Key holdings

KEA may conduct a further round of PGCET 2026-27 counselling and seat allotment for MBA, MCA and M.Tech against vacant sanctioned seats (paras 1, 4).

The last date of PG counselling, 14.09.2026, is extended to 14.11.2026; classes are to commence from 15.11.2026 (para 5).

AICTE did not object to a one-time, exceptional extension, on conditions including a compensatory academic schedule and admissions only within approved intake (para 3).

The order is passed on the facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as precedent (para 6).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA) applied in the 2012 civil appeal for leave to conduct a second round of counselling for PGCET 2026-27 against vacant sanctioned seats and for 15 more days, and sought prospective directions to AICTE on staggered admission schedules (para 1). Asked to explain the belated application, KEA's Executive Director stated on affidavit that 58,347 students took the test, 23,165 joined the first round on 11.09.2026, candidates of some colleges could not take part because their UG results were not declared, and 13,590 seats remained unallotted (para 2).

Court's Findings

The Court had asked KEA to explain the circumstances of the belated application and the steps needed so that students ‘do not miss out on the classes’ (para 2). An AICTE Advisor appeared, as directed on 26.10.2026, with instructions to permit fresh counselling followed by admissions; he added that additional conditions would be framed so that academic standards are not compromised (para 3). In its affidavit AICTE recorded no objection to ‘a one-time, exceptional extension’, subject to conditions: admissions confined to vacant seats within approved intake and made by merit, eligibility and reservation rules; a compensatory academic schedule; no dilution of curriculum or credits; and no use as a precedent (para 3). Having considered the matter, the Court allowed prayer (a) (para 4). It directed KEA to commence and conclude the counselling by 14.11.2026 and ensure that classes commence from 15.11.2026 ‘in accordance with the averments made in the affidavit’, extending the 14.09.2026 last date accordingly (para 5). The order gives no direction on the prospective prayers to AICTE.

Legal Principle

The order lays down no rule. It is passed ‘in the facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as precedent’ (para 6). It shows the Court extending an AICTE admission deadline once, on KEA's explanation and AICTE's no-objection with conditions (paras 3-5).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

Colleges and candidates in Karnataka's MBA, MCA and M.Tech admissions should note the dates in para 5 and the conditions AICTE set out in its affidavit (para 3): a compensatory academic schedule, admissions only within approved intake, and no relaxation of curriculum or credits. The Court required an explanation for the late application and on steps to protect classes before acting (para 2). Other authorities should not treat this as a route to routine extensions: the order says it shall not be treated as precedent (para 6), and it gave no direction on KEA's prayers for prospective changes to AICTE's admission schedules.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.