Delhi High Court
Hanan Shajahan Chittothayil vs Union Of India Through Principal ... on 25 September, 2025
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 582/2025 & CM APPL. 57801-02/2025
HANAN SHAJAHAN CHITTOTHAYIL .....Appellant
Through: Mr.Santosh Kumar, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Nishant, Mr.Rohit Singh,
Mr.Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, Ms.Suruchi
Yadav and Mr.Sanjeev Baghel,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE NIRMAN
BHAWAN NEAR UDYOG BHAWAN METRO STATION
MAULANA AZAD ROAD NEW DELHI110011 & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Ms.Seema Dolo, Adv. for R-2/NTA.
% Date of Decision: 25th September, 2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGEMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J : (ORAL)
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the
order dated 03.09.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 12752/2025, titled
"Hanan Shajahan Chittothayil v. Union of India & Ors.". By the said
order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the
appellant cannot be permitted to change her category from "General" to
"OBC-NCL" in the portal of respondent no. 2/NTA, once she had failed to
select the OBC-NCL category at the time of filling the application form
and further failed to avail the correction window granted for the said
purpose. It was further observed that granting such relief to a single
candidate would amount to creating an inequitable exception.
2. Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant submits that as is apparent from the facts, the appellant
committed a mistake which can be deemed to be a bona fide error while
filling-up the online form for participating in the NEET (UG) Exam, 2025.
In that instead of filling in "OBC-NCL" category, the appellant had
erroneously entered "General Category" candidate. He states that the
appellant had scored 143 marks with 49th percentile and as per the scheme
of the examination, to qualify the preliminary examination, a General
Category candidate has to score 50th percentile. He states that had the
appellant entered the correct category i.e. OBC-NCL, the appellant would
have been qualified to participate in the counseling. This, the appellant
realised after the results were declared. He submits that the appellant
immediately applied for and obtained OBC-NCL certificate on 23.07.2025.
Learned senior counsel also submits that an e-mail dated 28.07.2025 was
sent to the respondent seeking permission to rectify the mistake and to
further convert her category from General to OBC-NCL.
3. Learned senior counsel contends that the aforesaid error is a bona
fide mistake and can be permitted to be rectified even at this stage, keeping
in mind that the appellant would otherwise, stand to lose one crucial
academic year of her life. He also states that it is a trivial mistake which if
permitted to be rectified would not prejudice anyone and in fact, would
save one crucial year of the appellant's academic pursuit. He states that
such permissions by virtue of Court's directions is not unknown and relies
upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ms.
Charu Kain vs. High Court of Delhi; WP(C) 9230/2022 decided on
03.06.2022. However, Mr. Kumar, learned senior counsel fairly states that
cut-off dates are sacrosanct but those apply rigorously only to service
matters and not to the academic matters particularly relating to admission
of candidates to pursue higher studies.
4. We have heard Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellant as also Ms. Seema Dolo, learned counsel for the
respondent, perused the material on record and considered the judgment in
Charu Kain (supra).
5. From the facts culled out, it is clear and admitted by the appellant
that she filled in the online form as a General Category candidate. The
public notice was issued by NTA regarding the schedule of examination on
07.02.2025. The last date for submission of the applications by the
aspirants was 07.03.2025 and the window for correction of particulars was
from 09.03.2025 to 11.03.2025. Admittedly, the appellant did not seek any
rectification of category during the window period provided by NTA. It is
also not disputed that it was only after that results were declared on
14.06.2025 that the appellants claims to have realised her "error". It is also
not disputed that the appellant had applied for the OBC-NCL certificate
with the relevant authority for the first time after the declaration of results
which was issued to her on 23.07.2025. It was only thereafter that the
appellant sent an e-mail to NTA on 28.07.2025 seeking permission to
rectify her mistake and for conversion of her category from General to
OBC-NCL.
6. Though the learned senior counsel submitted that the error/mistake
was not only bona fide but also of a trivial nature and therefore, a direction
for acceptance of the OBC-NCL certificate with a simultaneous direction to
convert appellant's category from General to OBC-NCL can be passed,
however, such submission is untenable in law. For the purposes of
rectification of falling within the category of either General or OBC-NCL,
the aspirants had been provided a window period from 09.03.2025 to
11.03.2025. Admittedly, the appellant did not avail of this opportunity. In
fact, the appellant did not take any action in this regard till the results were
declared on 14.06.2025. Moreover, the certificate obtained by her was
issued on 23.07.2025 which is much after the declaration of results and the
delay in taking appropriate action within the appropriate time is fatal to her
case.
7. The law in regard to submission of relevant documents particularly
certificates relating to OBC-NCL category within the cut-off date, if so
specified in the notification or before the last date of submission of
applications is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sakshi Arha vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors.; 2025
SCC OnLine SC 757. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakshi Arha (supra)
was considering a dispute of a similar nature arising out of the
advertisement issued by the Rajasthan High Court for appointment to the
post of Civil Judge cadre. The appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
did not possess a valid OBC-NCL certificate as found by the Apex Court as
per the proforma at the relevant time in accordance with the requirement
stipulated therein. Distinguishing the judgment in Ram Kumar Gijroya vs.
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board; (2016) 4 SCC 754 and
referring to the judgment in Bhupinder Pal Singh vs. State of Punjab;
(2000) 5 SCC 262, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the eligibility is to
be adjudged on of the last date of submission of applications before the
concerned authority or institute in case the notification does not prescribe
the cut-off date for the submission of the relevant documents prescribed by
the said notification.
8. In that view of the matter, a direction to the NTA to accept the OBC-
NCL certificate and to convert the category of appellant from General to
OBC-NCL at this late stage would ipso facto be contrary to the ratio of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court both in Bhupinderpal Singh
(supra) and Sakshi Arha (supra). The relevant paragraph of Sakshi Arha
(supra) is extracted hereinbelow:-
"27. On the subject of absence of last date to showcase their eligibility
by a candidate apropos their equivalent claim, this Court clarified the
correct position of law in its decision in Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of
Punjab [(2000) 5 SCC 262], where, while upholding the view taken by
High Court of Punjab and Haryana, held that the eligibility criteria for
candidates aspiring public employment shall be determined pertaining
to the cut-off date as outlined in the applicable rules of their respective
service. In case the rules are silent, the decisive date is, ideally,
indicated in the advertisement for recruitment. However, in case of
absence of specifications in both context, the eligibility is to be
adjudged in lieu of the last date of submission of applications before
the concerned authority or institute. This, thereby, ensures a clear
temporal reference point for evaluating qualifications of a candidate as
per the concerned advertisement.
28. This derivation of the position of law was from the decision of this
Court in Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt) v. University of Rajasthan [1993 Supp
(3) SCC 168] wherein the Bench explicitly observed that the proposition
of assessing a candidate's qualification with reference to the date of
selection, as opposed to the last date of applications is untenable and
must be unequivocally dismissed. The indeterminate nature of the date of
selection renders it impracticable for applicants to ascertain whether
they meet the prescribed qualifications, particularly if such
qualifications are yet to be attained. The relevant paragraph is
reproduced as follows:
"10. The contention that the required qualifications of the
candidates should be examined with reference to the date of
selection and not with reference to the last date for making
applications has only to be stated to be rejected. The date of
selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of
such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to
state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if
they are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement
mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are
to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it
would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the
requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for
the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary
consequence, viz., even those candidates who do not have the
qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an
uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the
number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in
that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of
selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some
applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a
fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting
applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications
should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the
qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. We
have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that when the Selection
Committee in the present case, as argued by Shri Manoj Swarup,
took into consideration the requisite qualifications as on the date of
selection rather than on the last date of preferring applications, it
acted with patent illegality, and on this ground itself the selections
in question are liable to be quashed. Reference in this connection
may also be made to two recent decisions of this Court in A.P.
Public Service Commission, Hyderabad v. B. Sarat Chandra [(1990)
2 SCC 669 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 377 : (1990) 4 SLR 235 : (1990) 13
ATC 708] and District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social
Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram v. M. Tripura
Sundari Devi [(1990) 3 SCC 655 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 520 : (1990) 4
SLR 237 : (1990) 14 ATC 766]."
(emphasis supplied)
9. The reliance of learned senior counsel upon the judgment in the case
of Charu Kain (supra) is completely misplaced which is not applicable to
the facts of this case. In that case, the petitioner therein was a Reserved
Category candidate (SC) and had erroneously submitted an application as a
General Category candidate for the purposes of appearing in Delhi Judicial
Service Preliminary Examination, 2022. Though the petitioner had secured
119.5 marks, she could only be eligible for appearing in the main
examination, if the petitioner would be considered as a SC candidate. The
cut-off marks for the SC candidate was ascertained at 115.5 marks. It was
noted that there were 8 vacancies for the reserved category and about 81
candidates form part of the selected candidates. It was pointed out by the
petitioner therein that she had appeared for the same examination on three
prior occasions in the year 2017, 2018 and 2019 as a SC candidate. The
respondent therein submitted that if the petitioner had filled her form
correctly under the SC category, she would have been placed in the order of
merit after the candidate at no.58 and that no other candidate would be
prejudiced. Upon the aforesaid facts, the Coordinate Bench of this Court
found that in case the petition was allowed, no prejudice would be caused
to anyone.
10. In the present case, if we were to allow the appeal, serious prejudice
would be caused not only to the OBC-NCL category candidates who may
have got selected all over the country but also would create a piquant
situation inasmuch, as all such similarly placed candidates who may have
applied under the General Category, would now submit an OBC-NCL
certificate and seek parity on the same ground as the appellant. This is
impermissible in law. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Charu Kain
(supra) having found that such decision would not prejudice anyone,
delivered the judgment which, therefore, is distinguishable on facts.
Moreover, the Court did not have the occasion to consider the judgement of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakshi Arha (supra). Thus, the ratio in Charu
Kain (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
11. That apart, learned Single Judge in the impugned judgement has
rightly relied upon the judgements of this Court in - (i) W.P(C) 1189/2022
titled Sharanya Kaja vs. Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS)
& Ors.; decided on 04.02.2022 and (ii) - W.P.(C) 12565/2022 Shyam
Sunder vs. The Union of India & Anr.; decided on 31.08.2022 and
extracted the same in paragraphs 24 and 25 of the impugned judgement.
12. In view of the above, we do not find any reason, much less cogent
reason, to interfere with the detailed and reasoned impugned judgment
passed by the learned Single Judge. Resultantly, the appeal being bereft of
merit, is dismissed.
13. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
SEPTEMBER 25, 2025/rl
