[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Mubeen Ali Roshan Ali Umatia vs Admission Committee For Professional ... on 28 November, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16110/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16110 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
=====================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
=====================================================
MUBEEN ALI ROSHAN ALI UMATIA
Versus
ADMISSION COMMITTEE FOR PROFESSIONAL POSTGRADUATE
MEDICAL COURSES & ANR.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR SANDIP H MUNJYASARA(10781) for the Petitioner(s)
No. 1
MS NAISARGI N CHAVDA(11670) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1
MR. KM ANTANI(6547) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 28/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Sandip Munjyasara
appearing for the petitioner; learned Additional
Advocate General Ms. Manisha Luvkumar Shah appearing
with learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Kanva
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16110/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
Antani for respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr.
Ankit Shah appearing for respondent No.2.
2. With the consent of the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties, the matter is
taken up for final hearing. Hence, Rule. Learned
counsels waive service of Rule on behalf of the
respective respondents.
3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has
challenged the action of the respondents--more
particularly respondent No.1 in declaring the
petitioner as non-eligible for NEET-PG 2025, and has
prayed that the petitioner's aggregate percentage, as
reflected in the original university mark sheet, be
considered for all counselling and tie-breaking
purposes. The petitioner has also prayed for
permission to participate in the ongoing NEET-PG 2025
State counselling process.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he has
completed MBBS and is now seeking admission to a
postgraduate course by participating in the NEET-PG
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16110/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
2025 admission process. The petitioner has secured
57.33% marks, which is the average of the three years
of the MBBS course. However, while filling up the
form for admission to NEET-PG, instead of entering
57.33%, the petitioner inadvertently mentioned his
average MBBS marks as 58.28%. In view of the above
discrepancy, and in view of the guidelines issued by
respondent No.2--more particularly Clause 2.2 and
Clause 10.2 of the NEET-PG 2023 Information Bulletin--
the petitioner's candidature was cancelled upon
examination of his application form due to the
discrepancy in the percentage of marks obtained in
MBBS. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present
petition seeking the reliefs stated herein above.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Sandip Munjyasara submitted
that although the petitioner's aggregate marks for
the three years of MBBS are 57.33%, due to an
inadvertent mathematical error, the percentage was
stated as 58.28% in the application form. During the
scrutiny of the application form, upon noticing the
discrepancy between the petitioner's actual
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16110/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
percentage and the percentage mentioned in the form,
the petitioner's candidature was cancelled in view of
Clause 10.10.1. Learned advocate Mr. Sandip
Munjyasara submitted that the aforesaid mistake was
an inadvertent mathematical error, not intended to
commit any malpractice or to misrepresent the
petitioner's case, nor was it aimed at any
suppression. However, the mistake committed is purely
a mathematical error, and for such a minor mistake,
the petitioner's participation in the NEET-PG
admission process ought not to be cancelled. The
petitioner is a meritorious candidate, and there is
every possibility that, if permitted to participate
in the NEET-PG admission process, he may secure
admission in the branch of his choice. Therefore, for
such a small mathematical error, this Court may not
allow the rules to ruin the career of the petitioner.
6. The petition was vehemently opposed by learned
Additional Advocate General Ms. Manisha L. Shah,
assisted by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.
Kanva Antani, and by learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16110/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, respectively.
According to learned counsel Ms. Manisha Shah,
respondent No.1 is only conducting the admission
process and has no role in framing the rules.
Respondent No.1 is also not empowered to correct any
mistake, as the guidelines are framed by respondent
No.2, which only oversees the admission process. It
was further contended that even if the petitioner is
allowed to participate, at the stage of cross-
verification, the petitioner's actual percentage
compared with the percentage stated in the
application form would result in a mismatch in the
software. Consequently, there is every likelihood
that the petitioner would again be denied admission
on the ground that the marks actually obtained in
MBBS do not match the marks entered in the
application form. Learned Additional Advocate General
Ms. Manisha Shah also submitted that, since
respondent No.1 is not empowered to make any
corrections or to permit the petitioner to
participate in the process, this Court may dismiss
the petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16110/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
7. Learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah, appearing for
respondent No.2, submitted that the rules are framed
to ensure that no malpractice, misrepresentation, or
suppression takes place in the admission process, and
that only meritorious candidates are granted
admission. Therefore, the rules are designed to
protect the interests of students. It was contended
that the student was expected to be extra vigilant
while filling up the form, and once the form is
filled, submitted, uploaded, and the admission
process is about to commence, the applicant cannot,
at this stage, seek to correct the marks. Hence, the
petition is required to be dismissed.
8. At this juncture, learned advocate for the
petitioner submitted that, considering the nature of
the mistake committed by the petitioner, the fact
that he is a doctor seeking admission to a
postgraduate course, the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, appropriate relief may be
granted. This Court may exercise its powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and permit
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16110/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
the petitioner to participate in the postgraduate
admission process by directing the respondents to
allow the petitioner to correct his percentage of
marks in the application form itself, so that there
are no further complications arising from any
discrepancy between the petitioner's actual marks and
the marks stated in the application form.
9. I have heard the learned counsels for the
parties and perused the record. Upon perusal of the
record as well as the information bulletin, I find
that the relevant clauses are Clause 2.2 and Clause
10.10.1, and more particularly Clause G of Clause
10.10.1, which are reproduced as under :-
"10.10. VALIDITY OF NEET-PG 2025 RESULT
10.10.1. The validity of the result of NEET-PG
2025 shall be only for the current admission
session i.e. 2025-26 admission session for
MD/MS/PG Diploma courses and cannot be carried
forward for the next session of admissions for
MD/MS/PG Diploma courses. Kindly note that the
registration of admissions for MD/MS/PG Diploma
courses is governed by Post Graduate Medical
Education Regulations, 2023 issued by the NMC
with prior approval of Central Government and
the Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16110/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
TIE BREAKER CRITERIA:
In the event of two or more candidates obtaining
same normalized marks, one or more of the
following tie breaking criteria shall be used
for resolving the tie The merit position shall
be determined using following tie breaker
criteria in descending order
A. Candidate having overall lesser number of
negative responses in the entire question paper
will be placed at a better merit position re
will get a higher rank in the merit list.
B. Candidate having lesser number of negative
responses in the Section A of the question paper
will be placed at a better merit position i.e.
will get a higher rank in the merit list.
C. Candidate having lesser number of negative
responses in the Section B of the question paper
will be placed at a better merit position i.e.
will get a higher rank in the merit list.
D. Candidate having lesser number of negative
responses in the Section C of the question paper
will be placed at a better merit position ie.
will get a higher rank in the merit list.
E. Candidate having lesser number of negative
responses in the Section D of the question paper
will be placed at a better merit position i.e.
will get a higher rank in the merit list.
F. Candidate having lesser number of negative
responses in the Section E of the question paper
will be placed at a better merit position i.e.
will get a higher rank in the merit list.
G. Candidate securing higher aggregate marks (in
percentage) in all MBBS Professional
Examinations will be placed at a better merit
position ie. will get a higher rank in the merit
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16110/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
list. In case of Indian Citizens/ OCI who have
obtained their Primary Medical Qualifications
from outside India, their FMG Examination marks
(in percentage) shall be considered in lieu of
aggregate marks (in percentage) in all MBBS
Professional Examination. It is to be noted that
the aggregate marks in percentage shall be
provided by the applicant while submitting
her/his application form to NBEMS. The marks
shall be provided as an accurate value rounded
down to two decimals. An illustration to this
process is as follows
Candidates Maximum Marks Aggregate Percentag
Marks Obtained Percentag e to be
e rounded
down to
A 900 623 69.22222 69.22
B 900 619 68.77777 68.77
11. Considering the fact that the petitioner
has filled up the form and nothing has been
brought on record to indicate that the
petitioner has indulged in any malpractice,
attempted to suppress any information, or filed
the petition with an intent to misrepresent his
case, When a student is seeking admission to a
postgraduate medical course, such an inadvertent
mathematical mistake should not prove costly to
the student, and such a minor error should not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16110/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
be allowed to jeopardize a person's career.
Therefore, since the admission process has not
yet commenced and the petitioner has approached
this Court before its initiation, the
petitioner's case deserves to be considered
sympathetically. Furthermore, there is nothing
on record to indicate that the petitioner is
attempting to obtain any undue advantage, as the
only relief sought is the correction of the
percentage of marks stated in the application
form, and thereafter, participation in the
admission process on that basis. Even the
petitioner's participation in the admission
process would not confer any right upon him or
create any assurance that he will be able to
secure admission. Therefore, such participation
is not likely to adversely affect any of the
stakeholders.
12. Accordingly, such a clerical and
inadvertent mathematical mistake is required to
be corrected, and the same is hereby directed to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16110/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
be corrected. The respondents are directed to
permit the petitioner to correct the aggregate
percentage of marks obtained in the MBBS course
as 57.33 instead of 58.28, and such correction
shall be given effect in all the records
maintained by the respondents. The petitioner
shall thereafter be permitted to participate in
the admission process for the PG medical course.
Resultantly, in view of the above directions,
the respondents' order or action in not
permitting the petitioner to participate in the
PG medical course selection process is hereby
quashed and set aside.
13. The respondents are directed to allow the
petitioner to participate in the PG admission
process after the petitioner corrects the
application form, and such correction shall be
duly reflected in all the computed data
maintained by the respondents. This exercise is
directed to be completed by today evening i.e.
28.11.2025. In addition to the above direction
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16110/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
it is further directed to the advocates for the
respondent that by the time this order is typed
and signed it may take sometime and therefore,
learned advocate for the respondents are
directed to communicate about this order orally
to the respective clients.
14. With the aforesaid directions, the petition
is allowed. Rule is made absolute. There shall
be no order as to costs. Liberty is reserved in
favour of either party to approach the Court in
case of any difficulty. In view of the fact that
the respondents shall carry out the exercise de
novo in respect of the petitioner, the
petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.
10,000 towards costs to respondents No.2 and a
sum of Rs.15,000 to the High Court Legal
Services Authority. It is clarified that this
order is passed in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, and the same shall
not be treated as a precedent.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
Pallavi
