Delhi High Court
Anu Yadav vs Secretary (School Edu. And ... on 6 April, 2018
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision : 06.04.2018
+ W.P.(C) 2847/2018 & CM Nos.11548/2018, 11549/2018
ANU YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Adv.
versus
SECRETARY (SCHOOL EDU. AND LITERACY) AND ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Manik Dogra, Sr. Govt.
Counsel for R-1.
Mr.Amit Bansal with
Ms.Manisha Singh &
Ms.Seema Dolo, Adv. for
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner has sought a direction to
respondent No.2 to accept the examination fees in the sum of
Rs.1,400/- and permit the petitioner to appear in the National
Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET Exam), 2018 held on
06.05.2018, for which the last date was upto 11:50 pm on 13.03.2018.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
a meritorious student having obtained 94.6% in the senior secondary
examination held in the year 2017. He further submits that petitioner
had appeared in the NEET Exam-2017 as an OBC candidate and had
obtained 539 out of 720 marks therein, but was unable to achieve the
cut off marks of 553 out of 720 and was, therefore, once again
preparing for the NEET Exam-2108. He submits that being desirous
for applying for NEET, she had required the coaching institute where
the petitioner was undergoing coaching, to submit her online
application form and complete all necessary formalities.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it later transpired
that that due to oversight on the part of the dealing clerk int he
coaching institute, the petitioner's examination fee could not be
remitted and petitioner became aware of the same only on 12.03.2018
when she received a message from the respondent No.2 regarding
non-remittance of the examination fee.
4. Upon notice, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit
wherein they have explained that the application form of the NEET
(under graduate) was 100% online process and the application form
could be submitted successfully by completing the following 4 steps:-
"7. That the application form of NEET (UG)
2018 is 100% online and application could be
submitted successfully by completing and following 04
steps:
i. Registration on the NEET website
ii. Submission of entire application form
including uploading of photograph and
signature
iii. Payment of online fees.
iv. Printout of confirmation page (a proof of
payment of fee)"
5. It is further explained by the respondents that step-2 relates to
submission of entire application form including uploading of
photograph and signature and the same further divided into three parts
to facilitate the candidate so that they could submit one part at a time
in case if they so desire. It is the respondents' case that though the
petitioner had duly registered on the NEET website and had initiated
the process for submission of the application form, she had not
completed the said process and had not uploaded her photograph and
signature which was a pre-requisite for the successful submission of
the application form.
6. Mr.Bansal further submits that since the submission of the
petitioner's application form was not complete, there was no question
of her paying the examination fees and it is only for this reason, the
petitioner's examination fee was not accepted by the system. He
submits that in view of the aforesaid position that the petitioner's
application form itself was incomplete and had not been submitted in
accordance with the laid down procedure, the system of the
respondents cannot be faulted for not having accepted the fees from
the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has refuted the aforesaid
submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents and
contends that the petitioner had successfully completed all the three
stages. He places reliance on the 'login details' of the petitioner to
contend that after the draft Nos.1, 2 and final draft submitted by the
petitioner had been saved, the petitioner had duly clicked on the 'final
submit' entry on 21.02.2018 itself and, therefore, contends that it is
apparent that the petitioner had duly completed the second stage which
meant that her application had been successfully accepted by the
system of the respondents.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that except
the bald statement of the petitioner that she had duly completed the
second stage, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had
successfully completed the second stage. A perusal of the login entry
does not lead to the conclusion that the petitioner's application form
was accepted and those login entries merely show that the certain
drafts were saved.
9. There is yet another reason as to why the petitioner's plea that
her application form had been successfully submitted, cannot be
accepted. A perusal of the e-mail dated 13.03.2018 filed as Annexure
P-8 by the petitioner sent at 8.05 a.m. on 13.03.2018, shows that the
petitioner herself had stated that the login ID did not show her
photograph and signature and, therefore, a request was made by her
vide this e-mail to permit her to login so that the payment could also
be made.
10. At this stage, it may also be appropriate to notice the e-mail sent
by the petitioner at 4. 51 p.m. on 13.03.2018 wherein the petitioner
has in no unclear terms, stated that on the night of 12.03.2018, she had
successfully uploaded and submitted her photograph and signatures,
but still she was unable to make the payment process on 13.03.2018.
Thus, it appears that the petitioner is taking contradictory stands in her
two e-mails both dated 13.03.2018 one having been sent at 8.05 a.m.
and the other at 4:51 p.m.
11. On the one hand, the petitioner had sent her e-mail sent at 8.05
a.m. on 13.03.2018 taking the plea that the login did not show her
photograph and signatures whereas on the same date at 4.51 p.m., she
had taken the plea that the photograph and signature had been
uploaded on 12.03.2018. Even though learned counsel for the
petitioner contends that the login record does not show that the
petitioner had gone online on 12.03.2018 and therefore, urges that the
petitioner's e-mail sent at 4:51 p.m. on 13.03.2018, wherein she had
asserted that she had uploaded her photograph and signature on
12.03.2018, may be ignored and her assertion that she had
successfully submitter her application form on 21.02.2018 should be
believed.
12. Having given my thoughtful consideration, I am of the view,
that in the light of the categoric denial by the respondents that the
submission of the petitioner's application form was ever completed as
per procedure before the prescribed deadline time of 5:30 p.m. on
12.03.2018, it is not possible for this Court, while exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to come to a
conclusion that her form was duly submitted as per procedure.
13. In view of the aforesaid conclusion that the submission of the
petitioner's application form itself was not completed, the Court is
unable to accede to the prayer made by the petitioner to direct the
respondents to accept her fees belatedly.
14. The petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. The pending
applications also stand disposed of.
(REKHA PALLI)
JUDGE
APRIL 06, 2018/gm
