mumbai, Oct. 14 -- More than 12,000 IIT aspirants have petitioned the union education ministry, IIT Council and Joint Admission Board for increasing the number of attempts for the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE)-Advanced from two to three. They have also proposed allowing two attempts over three consecutive years instead of the current two-year limit. The students said that the existing rules prevented many candidates who were capable of doing better in the next attempt from securing admission to the IITs. The demand has gained attention amid growing discussions about student stress and mental well-being. JEE-Main allows students up to six attempts over three consecutive years, making the difference in the two examination rules a key concern for aspirants. "If improvement is allowed in JEE-Main, why is it restricted in JEE-Advanced? This inconsistency denies many capable and hardworking students a fair opportunity to demonstrate their true potential," the students said in their representation. They argued that a third attempt would not increase competition unfairly, as the number of IIT seats would remain unchanged and the examination would continue to test the same level of knowledge and problem-solving skills. Lucky Jethani, an IIT Bombay alumnus who has been coaching students for over 12 years, pointed out that an additional attempt would particularly benefit students from underprivileged backgrounds. "If the National Testing Agency allows six attempts for JEE-Main in three years, why not allow one more attempt for JEE-Advanced?" he questioned. "It would help students who miss selection by a few marks, as well as those who could not appear due to an emergency," Jethani added. Aspirants, too, pointed out that students from rural and economically weaker backgrounds were likely to begin serious preparation later than those with access to coaching from an early age. A third attempt, they said, could give such students more time to prepare and demonstrate their abilities. When HT contacted the ministry of education on this issue, there was no response....