Telangana High Court
Gundu Varsheeth vs The National Testing Agency on 29 April, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT PETITION No.13430 of 2025
ORDER:
(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)
Sri Karan Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India
for respondent Nos.1 and 5.
2. Heard on admission.
3. The petitioner has prayed for the following relief:
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit,
it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a
Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of a
Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declaring
the refusal of the Respondent No.1 in not allowing the
Petitioner to participate in the NEET (UG) - 2025 exam as
unjust and incorrect (ii) directing the Respondent No.1 to
allow the Petitioner/Respondent No.2 to provide the required
documents offline and to make the Application fee by way of
alternative modes by way of NEFT/Demand Draft, ensuring
the participation of the Petitioner in the NEET (UG) - 2025;
in the interest of justice and equity and pass such other
order or orders as the Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the
purpose of filling up the application form for National Eligibility
cum Entrance Test (NEET) (Under Graduate), the petitioner was
solely dependent on respondent No.2, who assured the petitioner
to fill up the form in totality. The petitioner also paid the requisite
amount to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is the college where
the petitioner is presently studying. However, the petitioner could
gather later on that the form for NEET examination was not filled
up in complete by respondent No.2 and the same is evident from
Annexure P.11, wherein it is mentioned that "Examination Fee
NOT paid/incomplete Form". It is submitted that the reasons for
submission of incomplete form is solely attributable to respondent
No.2 and it was beyond the control of the petitioner. In this
peculiar circumstance, appropriate order may be passed directing
the respondents to accept the petitioner's form and late fees. In
order to bolster his submission that the mistake happened
because of the reason which was beyond the control of the
petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a
legal maxim i.e., lex non cogit ad impossibilia. By placing reliance
on the decision of the High Court of Madras in P.Swetha v.
Central Board of Secondary Education 1, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that although in the said case, the question
2017 SCC OnLine Mad 1400
was regarding late fees and delay occurred because of poor
internet connectivity, a lenient view was taken and in the interest
of justice, appropriate directions can be issued even now for
accepting the form of the petitioner and taking the fees from him.
5. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India opposed the
prayer on the basis of written instructions and submits that the
last date for payment of fees was over. It was the responsibility of
the petitioner to fill up the form with accuracy. He cannot shift
the burden on respondent No.2. By issuing public notice dated
07.02.2025, the National Testing Agency made it clear about the
last date and the formalities to be fulfilled. The petitioner, after
having failed to fill up the form in totality and fulfill the requisite
formalities, cannot claim the benefits. In support of his
submissions, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India placed
reliance on the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in Dinesh
Nadurmath v. Union of India (W.P.No.7606 of 2025, dated
19.03.2025) and the decision of the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in Namrata Sanjay Sarkate v.
Union of India (W.P.No.4212 of 2025, dated 27.03.2025).
6. In rejoinder submission, learned counsel for the petitioner
placed reliance on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in
Om Gurusai Construction Company v. V.N.Reddy 2 to draw an
analogy that the technicalities should not come in the way of the
Court for granting appropriate relief.
7. The parties have confined their arguments to the extent
indicated above and no other point is pressed.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
9. At the outset, we may deem it proper to observe that when
an examination of this nature is being conducted and a
notification is issued inviting candidature, it is for the candidate to
fill up his form with accuracy and precision and submit it before
the last date of submission of candidature. The petitioner is not
supposed to outsource this responsibility to respondent No.2 and
cannot then say that because of the fault of respondent No.2, he
cannot be made to suffer. In fact, a different maxim, in our
opinion, is applicable i.e., frustra legis auxilium invocat quaerit qui
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1051
in legem committit. In other words, a person cannot claim the
benefit of his own wrong (See Perry v. Fitzhowe 3 and Union of
India v. Maj. Gen. Madal Lal Yadav 4).
10. In our opinion, the petitioner should have been vigilant and
should have ensured that the form is filled up completely within
the stipulated time and, in any case, before the last date. If the
form was not filled up completely, no fault can be found in
Annexure P.11, wherein the candidature was rejected by stating
that "Examination Fee NOT paid/incomplete Form".
11. The decision of the High Court of Madras in P.Swetha
(supra) on which learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance, is totally based on a different factual scenario where the
fee could not be paid because of poor connectivity issue. The said
decision cannot be stretched in the factual backdrop of the
present matter. Similarly, the decision of the Supreme Court in
Om Gurusai Construction Company (supra) is also on a different
factual matrix and laid down the principle of law in that backdrop.
(1846) 8 QB 757 : 15 LJ QB 239
(1996) 4 SCC 127
12. The High Court of Karnataka in Dinesh Nadurmath (supra)
and the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at
Aurangabad in Namrata Sanjay Sarkate (supra) have declined
interference where the application was not complete and could not
be filed before the last date of submission of candidature. The
High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in
Namrata Sanjay Sarkate (supra) placed reliance on a judgment of
the Supreme Court in Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India (Writ
Petition (Civil) No.335/2024, dated 02.08.2024).
13. In our opinion, the petitioner cannot succeed by shifting the
responsibility on respondent No.2. After having failed to fill up
and submit the form in totality within the stipulated time, no relief
is due to the petitioner in discretionary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more so, when the
last date of submission of candidature was 07.03.2025 and the
examination is scheduled on 04.05.2025.
14. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to
costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
__________________________
RENUKA YARA, J
29.04.2025
Note: Issue C.C by tomorrow.
B/o.
vs/sa
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT PETITION No.13430 of 2025
(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)
29.04.2025
sa/vs
