Rajasthan High Court
Meghal Agarwal D/O Gyan Chand Jain vs Union Of India (2024:Rj-Jp:42151) on 7 October, 2024
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2024:RJ-JP:42151]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13827/2024
Meghal Agarwal D/o Gyan Chand Jain, Age About 17 Years 11
Month And 20 Days, Resident Of Jain Hospital And FRC Bali
Road, Falna, Pali Rajasthan Presently Resident Of 37, Milap
Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Minor Through Natural Guardian Renu
Gupta W/o Gyan Chand Jain Age 47 Years, Resident Of Jain
Hospital And FRC Bali Road, Falna, Pali Rajasthan Presently
Resident Of 37, Milap Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare,
Government Of India, Room No. 348, A Wing, Nirman
Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. National Medical Commission (NMC), Pocket -14, Sector-
8, Dwarka Phase- 1, New Delhi 110077, Through Its
Chairman.
3. Rajasthan Medical Council, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur Rajasthan Through Its Registrar.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Medical And Health, Secretariat, Janpath, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
5. Chairman, NEET UG Medical And Dental Admission /
Counseling Board 2024 And Principal And Controller,
Officer Of The Chairman NEET (UG) Medical And Dental
Admission, Government Dental College (RUHS) College Of
Dental Sciences, Subhash Nagar Behind Tb Hospital,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
6. Senior Director, National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test
(UG) 2022 Through Department Of Higher Education,
Ministry Of Education, Government Of India, C-20, IA/8,
Sector-62, Iitk Outreach Centre, Noida 201309.
7. Director General Of Health Services, Directorate General
Of Health Service, Department Of Health And Family
Welfare, Government Of India, New Delhi.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 19/10/2024 at 11:28:10 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:42151] (2 of 15) [CW-13827/2024]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG with
Mr. Yash Joshi
Mr. M.S. Raghav
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
REPORTABLE
07/10/2024
1. "To err is human; to forgive, divine," wrote Alexander Pope
in "An Essay on Criticism". This is said qua the criticism of poetic
literature; more about the critics approach to the work of others.
Is it possible to apply the idea as a principle of remedial resort in
legal matters? More particularly, can this idea inspire a selecting
body, inviting applications for admissions into premier high
education institutions, to allow candidates to correct mistakes
subsequently in their application forms about particulars/
credentials - where on merit, the candidate stands provisionally
eligible?
2. The instant petition is filed with the following prayers:
"(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in
the nature thereof the respondent may be directed
to allow the correction in the name of Petitioner as
Meghal Agarwal in place of Meghal Jain in the
Application of NEET (UG) 2024 for academic
session 2024.
(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in
the nature thereof the respondent may be directed
to allow the petitioner to participate in counseling
of NEET (UG) 2024 for academic session 2024.
(iii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in
the nature thereof the respondent may be directed
not to reject her application form bearing no.
(Downloaded on 19/10/2024 at 11:28:10 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:42151] (3 of 15) [CW-13827/2024]
240411472212 on account of the change of name
as Meghal Jain in place of Meghal Agarwal.
(iv) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court may
deems fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also be passed in
favour of petitioner.
(v) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be
awarded in favour of the petitioner."
3. The nitty-gritty of the instant matter is that the petitioner
'Meghal Agrawal' daughter of Gyan Chand Jain in the year 2023
appeared in Common University Entrance Test (CUET UG), and
subsequently in National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), with
the name Meghal Agrawal. Moreover, the documents such as the
AADHAR Card, Senior Secondary Examination mark-sheet,
passport card, domicile certificate etc. (Annexure-1) also notes
the petitioners' name as 'Meghal Agrawal'.
4. Subsequently, respondents issued a notification for NEET UG
Examination, 2024, inviting applications in-between the period
form 09.02.2024 and 09.03.2024 (Annexure-2). The exam qua
the same was scheduled on 05.05.2024. It is undisputed fact that
with the application form certain guidelines (Information Booklet)
and eligibility conditions were also released.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE PETITIONER
5. In this backdrop, learned counsel representing the petitioner
had submitted that on account of an inadvertent and bonafide
mistake, due to certain technical glitch, an error occurred in the
application form of the petitioner qua her surname. To be specific
instead of 'Meghal Agrawal' the surname of the petitioner
appeared as 'Meghal Jain'.
(Downloaded on 19/10/2024 at 11:28:10 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:42151] (4 of 15) [CW-13827/2024]
6. It was further contended that the petitioner took the said
exam on 05.05.2024, however, due to novice experience could not
notice the change in credentials. Nonetheless, the said mistake
was not even noticed by the exam conducting authorities whilst
checking the identity proof of the petitioner.
7. Consequently, the results qua the said examination were
declared and the petitioner scored 418 marks, and was declared
eligible to appear in the counseling. It was further contended that
even in the score-card issued by the respondents, the name of the
petitioner was reflected as 'Meghal Jain', and being aggrieved of
the same, the petitioner (via guardians) had submitted a
representation dated 08.08.2024, along with an affidavit of her
mother, before the respondents (Annexure-6). However, paying no
heed to the said representation, the respondents issued notice,
stating that the counseling for NEET UG Examination, 2024 shall
be conducted on 14.08.2024 (Annexure-7).
8. During the currency of the instant petition, albeit the notices
were issued, the admission of the petitioner was denied observing
"admission denying as directed by board member of NEET UG
counseling and Dr. Raghav (Assistant Nodal Officer, Academic
Section RHTMC, Udaipur)", subsequently on 05.09.2024 an interim
order was made operative in favor of the petitioner (one seat
being reserved under the said category, subject to the final
outcome of the instant matter), and RNT Medical College Udaipur,
was directed to reserve a seat under the NRI Category.
9. In support of the contentions made insofar reliance is made
upon the dictum enunciated in Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs. the
(Downloaded on 19/10/2024 at 11:28:10 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:42151] (5 of 15) [CW-13827/2024]
State of Bihar & ors. reported in (2024) 1 SCR 1 and
Manashvi Pachar vs. Union of India in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 11060/2024, and it was contended that the
particulars/credentials qua the details of the name of the
candidates were auto-filled by the server, therefore, the same
could not be rectified by the petitioner.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE RESPONDENTS
10. Learned AAG Mr. Shah had not refuted the fact that one seat
qua the petitioner is reserved in RNT Medical College, Udaipur,
however, had appraised the Court with the fact that the contesting
respondent qua the matter in hand would be respondent no.6-
NTA.
11. At the outset, learned counsel representing the respondent-
NTA had averred that National Testing Agency is an autonomous
self-sustained body established by the Ministry of Human
Resource Development (renamed as the Ministry of Education)
Government of India, under the Society Registration Act, 1980, for
conducting efficient, transparent, and international standards tests
in order to assess the competency of candidates for admissions to
premier high education institutions. It was further contended that
the NEET UG Examination, 2024 was conducted on 05.05.2024 by
NTA at the behest of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
with approval of MHRD, strictly in accordance with the norms
enshrined under regulation 57 of the Graduate Medical Education
Regulations, 1997, and section 61(2) of the National Medical
Council Act, 2019.
(Downloaded on 19/10/2024 at 11:28:10 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:42151] (6 of 15) [CW-13827/2024]
12. Further, learned counsel had averred that the National
Testing Agency had a limited responsibility qua the said
examination i.e. to conduct the entrance examination, declaration
of the result and thereafter providing All India Rank(s) (AIR) to
the concerned department. It was further contended that as soon
as the aforementioned process was completed, the said data was
forwarded to Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. Nonetheless, the
result and the AIRs for NEET UG Examination, 2024 were
prepared/notified by the respondent-NTA in strict subservience of
the norms fixed by the NMC/DGHS/NCH/CCH.
13. Moreover, the petitioner despite the categorical directions
spelled out in the information-booklet of NEET UG Examination,
2024, deliberately filled her name credentials as "Meghal Jain"
daughter of Shri Gyan Chand Jain, and accordingly her admit card
was issued under the said name. It was then averred that the
entry of particulars/credentials of the candidates were auto-
generated and the respondent-NTA has no role to play in it. At this
juncture, learned counsel had placed reliance upon Clause-6
(NOTE) and clause 11 of the said Information Booklet (Annexure
2) and had submitted that prior to the said examination it was
made clear that in no manner, after the completion of the
examination process NTA shall edit/alter/modify any information
entered by the candidates. For sake of convenience the relevant
relied provisions from the said Information Booklet is reproduced
herein below:
(Downloaded on 19/10/2024 at 11:28:10 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:42151] (7 of 15) [CW-13827/2024]
"6. Instructions for filling Online Application Form:
.......
[Note: The Candidate has to upload only his/her own
photograph, signature, Left and Right Hand Fingers and
Thumb impression, and certificate(s) as mentioned
above (and not of anybody else) in a correct/proper
manner, as the facility for correction will not be
given in future. In case, it is found at any time in the
future that the Candidates has used/uploaded the
photograph, Left and Right hand Fingers and Thumb
impression, signature, and certificate(s) of someone
else in his/her Application Form/Admit Card, or he/she
has tampered his/her Admit Card/result/Scorecard,
these acts of the candidate shall be treated under
Unfair Means (UFM) Practices and actions(s) will be
taken as detailed under the provisions of the
Information Bulletin relating to Unfair Means Practices.
11. NTA does not edit/modify/alter any information
entered by the candidates after completion of the
application process under any circumstances. Any
request for change in information thereafter will not be
entertained. Therefore, candidates are advised to
exercise utmost caution before filling up the correct
details in the Application Form."
14. Likewise, the petitioner had also failed to avail the remedy in
pursuance to the public notice dated 13.03.2024 and 10.04.2024
(Annexure-R/6/1 and R/6/2), which pertains to correction in
particulars of the online application form for NEET UG
Examination, 2024. Furthermore, learned counsel had averred
that if inspite of the fact that the petitioner had failed to avail the
remedy provided to the candidates qua correction in their
particulars/credentials, at this belated stage an opportunity is
granted, the said action will act as a precedent and will open a
[2024:RJ-JP:42151] (8 of 15) [CW-13827/2024]
pandora's box for endless litigations, qua the same issue in
various entrance/public exams forbye, the judicial review ought
not to be made in the decisions which were per se taken by the
academic bodies, considering the policy of the concerned
department. Lastly, learned counsel representing the respondent-
NTA had averred that the present petition is filed at a belated
stage, as the counseling is ongoing and the NTA had already
handed over the list of the eligible candidates to DGHS.
OBSERVATION
15. Upon an assiduous scanning of the record, considering the
aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, considering
the judgments cited at the Bar and taking note of the arguments
averred by the learned counsel for all the parties, this Court at this
juncture, deems it appropriate to jot down indubitable facts:-
15.1 That the instant petition is filed by the minor-petitioner
via her natural guardian. Moreover, the petitioner is a meritorious
student, who had appeared in the NEET UG Examination, 2024;
who on account of a bonafide error and inadvertent mistake and
due to technical glitch had mis-filled her surname
credentials/particulars.
15.2 That the public documents (identity proofs) of the
petitioner i.e. AADHAR card, Senior Secondary mark-sheet,
passport card, CUET UG Examination, 2023 Application Form (Also
issued by respondent-NTA), Domicile Certificate (Annexure-1)
reflects her name as "Meghal Agrawal" daughter of Shri Gyan
Chand Jain and Smt. Renu Gupta. It is pertinent to note that the
[2024:RJ-JP:42151] (9 of 15) [CW-13827/2024]
lis in question only pertains to the petitioner's surname, and not
her first-name -"Meghal".
15.3 That upon a perusal of the records it is noted that the
surnames of the parents of the petitioner are also distinguishable.
15.4 That notwithstanding anything, it is a settled position of
law as per the statutory provisions of the Bhartiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023 sections 74(1), 75, 78 and 80 (Erstwhile
provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, sections 74, 76, 79
and 81) that the Court shall presume the genuineness of every
public document.
15.5 The petitioner has filed a representation dated
08.08.2024 (Annexure-6) for correction of the
particulars/credentials of the petitioner's surname (duly annexed
with her Senior Secondary and Secondary Board mark-sheets)
before the concerned authorities.
CONCLUSION
16. Ergo, considering the aforementioned facts of the instant
matter, juxtaposing the averments raised by the learned counsel
for both the sides, scanning the judgments cited at the Bar, this
Court deems it appropriate to allow the instant petition for the
following reasons:
16.1 Considering the factual aspect of the instant matter, it
can be deduced that the petitioner appeared in the NEET UG
Examination, 2024 on 05.05.2024 with distinguishable
particulars/credentials in her admit card (issued by respondent-
NTA) and her original ID card (any public document), as the admit
card reflects the surname of the petitioner as "Meghal Jain" and
[2024:RJ-JP:42151] (10 of 15) [CW-13827/2024]
the identity proof of the petitioner reflects her surname as
"Meghal Agrawal". Albeit the said fact was evident on the date of
examination, no objection was raised/made by the examiner, and
the petitioner was granted permission to appear in the said
examination.
16.2 It is presumed that due to naïve age no remedy is
availed by the petitioner in pursuance to the public notices dated
13.03.2024 and 10.04.2024, nonetheless, the said change in
credentials of the petitioner's name was not objected/ made
subject to disqualification by the respondent-NTA. Moreover, an
admit card was issued by the respondents, and the petitioner was
permitted to appear in the exam, even with distinguishable
surname in the admit card and the identity proofs.
16.3 Substantial proofs (AADHAR Card, and Senior
Secondary Board mark-sheets- Annexure-1) are placed on record
to corroborate the contentions made by the learned counsel
representing the petitioner qua the correctness of the surname as
"Meghal Agrawal" instead of 'Meghal Jain'.
16.4 Moreover, the petitioner scored 418 marks in the said
examination, resultant to which she is provisionally allotted RNT
Medical College, Udaipur qua which she has already deposited (via
cheque) an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) as a
mandate for counseling (in the name of Chairman NEET UG
counseling, 2024).
16.5 In the foregoing facts and circumstances, this Court
deems it appropriate to place reliance upon the ratio encapsulated
in Vashist Narayan Kumar (Supra). Explicating it further, it can
[2024:RJ-JP:42151] (11 of 15) [CW-13827/2024]
be inferred that under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, it cannot be said that the error was so grave as to constitute
wrong or misleading information; there is an exception for trivial
errors or omissions as law does concern itself with trifles. This
principle is even recognized as de minimis non curat lex meaning
the law does not concern itself with trifles. It's a legal principle
that states the law doesn't take notice of minor or insignificant
matters, and therefore doesn't require judicial scrutiny. Withal, the
petitioner derived no advantage from the said error. The relevant
extract from the afore-cited ratio is reproduced herein below:
"14. We are not impressed with the argument of the
State that the error was so grave as to constitute wrong
or mis-leading information. We say on the peculiar facts
and circumstances of this case. Even the State has not
chosen to resort to any criminal action, clearly implying
that even they did not consider this error as having fallen
foul of the following clause in the advertisement:-
"Instructions to fill online application form are
available on the website. It is recommended to
all the candidates to carefully read the
instructions before filling the online application
form and kindly fill the appropriate response in
the following tabs. In case, the information given
by the candidates found wrong or misleading,
the application form will get rejected and
necessary criminal actions will also be taken
against the candidate."
15. Recently this Bench in Divya vs. Union of India &
Ors., 2023:INSC:900 = 2023 (13) Scale 730, while
declining relief to candidates who acquired eligibility
after the date mentioned in the notification carved out a
narrow exception. There, the judgment in Ajay Kumar
[2024:RJ-JP:42151] (12 of 15) [CW-13827/2024]
Mishra vs. Union of India & Ors., [2016] SCC Online
Del 6563, a case very similar to the facts of the present
case, was noted. In Ajay Kumar Mishra (supra),
Indira Banerjee, J. (as Her Ladyship then was) speaking
for the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in para 9
stated as under:-
9. It is true that whenever any material
discrepancy is noticed in the application form
and/or when any suppression and/or mis-
representation is detected, the candidature
might be canceled even after the application has
been processed and the candidate has been
allowed to participate in the selection process.
However, after a candidate has participated in
the selection process and cleared all the stages
successfully, his candidature can only be
cancelled, after careful scrutiny of the gravity of
the lapse, and not for trivial omissions or errors."
The exception for trivial errors or omissions is for the
reason that law does not concern itself with trifles. This
principle is recognized in the legal maxim- De minimis
non curat lex."
16.6 Additionally, reliance can be placed upon the dictum
enunciated in Divya vs. Union of India and ors. reported in
2023 (13) Scale 730 and it can be deduced that after a
candidate had successfully participated in the selection process
and has qualified all the stages successfully, his/her candidature
can only be canceled after a cautious scrutiny of the gravity of the
omission of error and not merely qua certain trifles.
16.7 Moreover, as per the opinion spelled out by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav Thru Her Father vs Central
Board for Secondary Education reported in (2021) 7 SCC 535
[2024:RJ-JP:42151] (13 of 15) [CW-13827/2024]
that "name is an intrinsic element of identity". The name of the
individual and his identity go hand in hand, and to be identified in
a certain way is the choice or preference of the individual, this
Court observes no bar as to why the same cannot be done in the
matter in hand. Withal, it is pertinent to note that if the balance of
convenience tilts in favor of the candidate, who shall bear
appalling consequences, due to the said error. The relevant extract
from the said ratio is reiterated herein below:
"132. It would not be out of place to note that
the two parties here-the Board and students-
are not in an equal position of impact. In
other words, the balance of convenience
would tilt in favour of students. For, they
stand to lose more due to inaccuracies in their
certificates than the Board whose sole worry
is increasing administrative burden. The
obligation of Board to take additional
administrative burden is no doubt onerous but
the propensity of a student losing career
opportunities due to inaccurate certificate is
unparalleled. Illustratively, a juvenile Accused of
being in conflict with the law or a victim of sexual
abuse whose identity gets compromised due to
lapses by media or the investigative body, despite
there being complete legal protection for the same,
may consider changing the name to seek
rehabilitation in the society in exercise of her right
to be forgotten. If the Board, in such a case,
refuses to change the name, the student would be
compelled to live with the scars of the past. We are
compelled to wonder how it would not be a grave
and sustained violation of fundamental rights of the
student. In such circumstances, the avowed public
[2024:RJ-JP:42151] (14 of 15) [CW-13827/2024]
interest in securing rehabilitation of affected
persons would overwhelm the Board's interest in
securing administrative efficiency. In fact, it would
be against the human dignity of the student, the
protection whereof is the highest duty of all
concerned. A Board dealing with maintenance of
educational standards cannot arrogate to itself the
power to impact identity of students who enroll
with it. The right to control one's identity must
remain with the individual, subject, of course, to
reasonable restrictions as observed above and as
further discussed later."
17. In summation to the afore-discussed facts and circumstances
of the instant matter, it can be noted that taking a liberal and
sympathetic approach qua the matter in hand, considering the
tough-grind efforts that the minor-petitioner has put in, to stand
meritorious in the said exam; especially taking note of the
provisions enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
and the fact that due to an inadvertent and bonafide mistake, the
rights of the minor-petitioner cannot be jeopardized; the identity
proofs placed on record (which are public documents - identity
proofs i.e. Passport Card, Senior Secondary Mark-sheet, AADHAR
Card) which reflect the name of the petitioner as "Meghal
Agrawal", and the overall facts and circumstances of the instant
matter, this Court deems it apposite to direct the respondents to
consider the candidature of the petitioner on merits, without being
influenced by the change in credentials i.e. "Meghal Jain" to be
considered as "Meghal Agrawal". Henceforth, qua the admission
process of NEET UG Examination, 2024, name of the petitioner be
considered as "Meghal Agrawal" instead of 'Meghal Jain'.
[2024:RJ-JP:42151] (15 of 15) [CW-13827/2024]
18. In above terms, the instant petition is allowed with the
following directions:
18.1 That the petitioner is directed to file requisite
applications, before the concerned /appropriate authorities/
respondent-NTA for correction/consideration of the change in
credentials/particulars.
18.2 That during the course of admission under the said
Medical Institute the surname credentials of the petitioner be
considered as per the Senior Secondary Mark-sheet and AADHAR
Card of the petitioner.
18.3 That in no manner the rights of the petitioner should be
jeopardized due to the change in credentials of her surname, and
her candidature be considered strictly on the basis of the merit
scored.
19. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed with the
aforementioned directions. No orders as to costs. Pending
applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
DEEPAK/7
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
