[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

National Testing Agency vs Malavika Suresh on 7 April, 2026

Author: Anil K. Narendran

Bench: Anil K. Narendran

W.A.NO.866 OF 2026                      1                  2026:KER:30816

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN

                                    &

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.

     TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1948

                            W.A.NO.866 OF 2026

          AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2026 IN WP(C) NO.11517 OF

                     2026 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA


APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:

              NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY
              REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, FIRST FLOOR, NSIC-
              MDBP BUILDING, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, NEW DELHI,
              PIN - 110020

              BY ADV SHRI.NIRMAL S, SC, NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1, 3, 4 AND 5:

      1       MALAVIKA SURESH
              AGED 19 YEARS
              D/O SURESH C.R., CHIRATTOLIKKAL, MUNDANPURAM,
              MUVATTUPUZHA P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, VTC MARADY (PART),
              ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686661

      2       UNION OF INDIA
              REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
              DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, MINISTRY OF
              EDUCATION NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001

      3       NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
              REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, POCKET 14, SECTOR-8,
              DWARAKA PHASE 1, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110077

      4       STATE OF KERALA
              REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER
              EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

      5       ADDL. R5 AKSHAYA CENTRE
 W.A.NO.866 OF 2026                       2                       2026:KER:30816

              REG NO.EKM 219 P.O JUNCTION, MUVATTUPPUZHA,
              ERNAKULAM- 686661, REPTRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETER.
              (ADDL. RESPONDENT 5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
              30.03.2026 IN I.A.NO.1/2026 IN WP (C) 11517/2026),
              PIN - 682316



OTHER PRESENT:

              SRI. B. UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR. GP;
              SRI. ROHITH R. KARTHA, CGC FOR R2;
              SRI. AKSHAY VENU FOR R1;
              SRI. K. S. PRENJITH KUMAR, SC, NATIONAL MEDICAL
              COMMISSION


       THIS     WRIT   APPEAL   HAVING       COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION    ON
07.04.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.A.NO.866 OF 2026                3                    2026:KER:30816



                           JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The 2nd respondent in W.P.(C)No.11517 of 2026 has filed

this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the

Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the order dated

30.03.2026 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition. The

1st respondent herein-petitioner has filed that writ petition,

invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus

commanding respondents 1 to 3 therein to accept her

application and to permit her to appear in the National Eligibility

cum Entrance Test (UG) 2026 [NEET(UG)-2026] conducted by

the 2nd respondent National Testing Agency (appellant herein)

scheduled to be held on 03.05.2026, by extending the time for

remittance of examination fee; a writ of mandamus commanding

respondents 1 to 3 therein to allow the petitioner to remit the

examination fee for NEET(UG)-2026, by reactivating the

payment option in her case, in the portal of the National Testing

Agency. The interim relief sought for in the writ petition is an

order directing respondents 1 to 3 therein to accept the W.A.NO.866 OF 2026 4 2026:KER:30816

application of the petitioner to appear in NEET (UG)-2026

conducted by the 2nd respondent National Testing Agency

(appellant herein) scheduled to be held on 03.05.2026, by

extending the time to accept the application fee from the

petitioner, by reactivating the payment option in her case, in the

portal of the National Testing Agency, pending disposal of the

writ petition.

2. On 24.03.2026, when the writ petition came up for

admission, the learned Single Judge directed the learned

Standing Counsel for National Testing Agency to get instructions

and file a statement.

3. Pursuant to the direction contained in the order dated

24.03.2026, a counter statement dated 30.03.2026 was filed on

behalf of the 2nd respondent National Testing Agency, opposing

the reliefs sought for, producing therewith Annexures R2(a) to

R2(j) documents. The said counter statement was presented on

30.03.2026.

4. By the impugned interim order dated 30.03.2026, the

learned Single Judge directed the 2nd respondent National

Testing Agency (appellant herein) to accept fee from the

petitioner for enrolling herself as a candidate for NEET(UG)-2026 W.A.NO.866 OF 2026 5 2026:KER:30816

examination, which is scheduled to be held on 03.05.2026. The

2nd respondent was directed to open the portal, for the petitioner

alone, on a day to be intimated to the petitioner, enabling her to

remit the fee. Challenging the said interim order dated

30.03.2026 of the learned Single Judge, the appellant-2nd

respondent is before this Court in this writ appeal.

5. We heard arguments of the learned Standing Counsel

for National Testing Agency, for the appellant-2nd respondent,

the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-petitioner, the learned

Central Government Counsel for the 2nd respondent, the learned

Standing Counsel for National Medical Commission for the 3rd

respondent and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for

the 4th respondent State.

6. During the course of arguments, the learned

Standing Counsel for the appellant-2nd respondent raised

contentions with specific reference to the provisions contained

in Annexure R2(a) prospectus for NEET(UG)-2026, with specific

reference to the instructions contained therein under the

heading - A. Important instructions and the procedure for online

payment in appendix VII. The learned Standing Counsel has also

relied on some of the orders/judgments produced along with the W.A.NO.866 OF 2026 6 2026:KER:30816

counter statement.

7. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent-petitioner

addressed arguments reiterating the contentions raised in the

writ petition.

8. We do not propose to consider those rival contentions

touching the merits of the matter pending adjudication in

W.P.(C)No.11517 of 2026, in this intra-court appeal, since the

challenge made is against the interim order dated 30.03.2026 of

the learned Single Judge. One of the specific grounds raised in

this writ appeal is that by the interim order dated 30.03.2026,

the learned Single Judge virtually granted the final relief sought

for in W.P.(C)No.11517 of 2026.

9. In State of U.P. v. Ram Sukhi Devi [(2005) 9 SCC

733] the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the final

relief sought for in the writ petition has been granted as an

interim measure. The Division Bench of the High Court did not

interfere with the said order in the intra-court appeal. The Apex

Court noticed that there was no reason indicated by learned

Single Judge as to why the Government order dated 26.10.1998

was to be ignored. Whether the petitioner was entitled to any

relief in the writ petition has to be adjudicated at the time of its W.A.NO.866 OF 2026 7 2026:KER:30816

final disposal. The Apex Court has, on numerous occasions,

observed that the final relief sought for should not be granted at

an interim stage. The position is worsened if the interim direction

has been passed with stipulation that the applicable Government

order has to be ignored. Time and again the Apex Court has

deprecated the practice of granting interim orders, which

practically give the principal relief sought in the petition, for no

better reason than that of a prima facie case having been made

out, without being concerned about the balance of convenience,

the public interest and a host of other considerations. See: CCE

v. Dunlop India Ltd. [(1985) 1 SCC 216], State of

Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties [(1985) 3 SCC 217], State

of U.P. v. Visheshwat [(1995) Supp. 3 SCC 590], Dr.

Bharat Bhushan Sonaji Kshirsagar v. Abdul Khalik Mohd.

Musa [(1995) Supp. 2 SCC 593], Shiv Shankar v. Board of

Directors, U.P. SRT [(1995) Supp. 2 SCC 726] and

Commissioner/Secretary to Government Health and

Medical Education Department v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Kohli

[(1995) Supp. 4 SCC 214]. The Apex Court noticed that no

basis has been indicated as to why learned Single Judge thought

the course as directed was necessary to be adopted. Even it was W.A.NO.866 OF 2026 8 2026:KER:30816

not indicated that a prima facie case was made out, though as

noted above, that itself is not sufficient. Therefore, the Apex

Court set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge, as

affirmed by the Division Bench, however without expressing any

opinion on the merits of the case.

10. In State of Kerala v. Pradeepkumar A.V. [2025

(1) KHC 672], this Court was dealing with a writ petition

seeking a declaration that the senior-most Registrar of the High

Court appointed by promotion from the High Court Service is

entitled to a higher grade in the scale of pay Rs.129300-166800

(Special Secretary's scale), with effect from 01.04.2021, as

recommended by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice in the letter dated

16.02.2021 and by the 11th Pay Revision Commission in its

report [Part II, February, 2021]; and a writ of mandamus

commanding the 2nd respondent to accept the proposal made by

the Hon'ble the Chief Justice as per the letter dated 16.02.2021

and to issue orders sanctioning a higher grade in the scale of

pay Rs.129300-166800 with effect from 01.04.2021 to the

senior-most Registrar appointed by promotion from the High

Court service, on a par with the scale of pay of Special Secretary

to the Government. The interim relief sought for in the writ W.A.NO.866 OF 2026 9 2026:KER:30816

petition was an order directing the 2nd respondent High Court to

issue orders sanctioning a higher grade with effect from

01.04.2021, in the scale of pay Rs.129300-166800, as

recommended by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice in the letter dated

16.02.2021 and by the 11th Pay Revision Commission in its

report, to the senior-most Registrar appointed by promotion

from the High Court Service, pending disposal of the writ

petition. On 12.12.2024, when the writ petition came up for

consideration, the learned Single Judge passed the following

order;

''Post this matter on 10.01.2025. If the recommendation of the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 16.02.2021 is not implemented before the next date of posting of this writ petition, the Chief Secretary of the State shall remain present before this Court on that day itself.''

11. In Pradeepkumar A.V. [2025 (1) KHC 672], while

setting aside the said interim order of the learned Single Judge,

this Court held that the interim relief sought for in the writ

petition is nothing but the final relief. Therefore, instead of

passing the impugned interim order dated 12.12.2024, the

learned Single Judge ought to have considered the rival

contentions and decided the question as to whether the writ W.A.NO.866 OF 2026 10 2026:KER:30816

petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus, as sought for in that

writ petition. At any rate, by way of an interim order,

respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition cannot be directed to

implement before the next posting of the writ petition, the

recommendation made by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice in the