JUDGMENT

Paul, J:- 1. The singular question involved in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether petitioner after filling up the form of counselling and inserting 'No' before the entry Whether he is domicile of State of M.P. can ask for a change in the entry relating to domicile and take benefit arising thereto.

2. Indisputably, petitioner preferred his candidature for MBBS and BDS Courses and appeared in the NEET U.G. Examination, 2021. By placing reliance on the educational qualification, certificates of Class-X and ClassXII of petitioner (Annexure P-1 and P-2 respectively), Shri S. M. Guru learned counsel submits that petitioner cleared both the examinations from State of M.P. Annexure P-3 is a domicile certificate of petitioner's father wherein the name of petitioner is also mentioned. Annexure P-4 is the form through which petitioner submitted his candidature for NEET Exam wherein his permanent address of Gohad, Bhind (M.P.) is mentioned. Shri S. M. Guru, learned counsel further submits that after getting the score card of NEET Test (Annexures P-5) when petitioner was required to fill up the counselling form, he committed an inadvertent mistake and in front of relevant entry whether he belongs to M.P. Domicile, he mentioned in capital letters as 'No'. In the result, the respondents in the impugned merit list treated the petitioner as a candidate not belonging to M.P. Domicile. This action of the respondents has a drastic impact on the petitioner's fate. If petitioner is treated to be a candidate having M.P. Domicile, his chances to get a Government institution in State of Madhya Pradesh will be on higher footing in comparison to a situation which is flowing from the impugned merit list.

3. The bone of contention of Shri S. M. Guru learned counsel is that the documents Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-3 coupled with the entry of form Annexure P-4 makes it clear that petitioner is a permanent resident of Madhya Pradesh. Thus, a technical mistake committed by him while entering 'No' in the counselling form (Annexure P-8). This should not deprive him from the fruits of domicile which he otherwise possess.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that as per Madhya Pradesh Medical Education Admission Rules, 2018 (in short ‘Rules’), the respondents have made it clear that after registration, no information furnished by candidate shall be permitted to be changed, modified or additional information shall be accepted. Shri Guru urged that this rule should not be given literal interpretation. Otherwise, it will defeat the very purpose of grant of benefit of domicile. This is a curable defect, which can be permitted to be cured. (2016) 7 SCC 478 (Kedar Mishra v. State of Bihar and Others) was relied upon to contend that the technical objection should not prevail over the purpose and object of the enactment. (2012) 5 SCC 511 P.A. Mohammed Riyas v. M.K. Raghavan and Others is relied upon to contend that a curable defect may be permitted to be cured. For the same purpose AIR 2000 SC 1261 Molar Mal (dead) through LRs. v. M/s. Kay Iron Works (P) Ltd. is relied upon. Judgment of Supreme Court (2015) 1 SCC 617 Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders Vs. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Meerut is relied upon to contend that curable defects can be permitted to be cured notwithstanding any statutory provision. Lastly, AIR 2002 SC 2877 Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and others and (2005) 9 SCC 779 Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE and Others were relied upon to bolster the submission that the merit should be given preference over any technicality.

5. Sounding a contra note, Shri Pradeep Singh, learned Government Advocate for the State submits that petitioner submitted the registration form on 23.12.2021 whereas last date was 21.1.2022. The petitioner submitted his form on 23.12.2021 but did not take any pains to correct the mistakes before last date of submission of form i.e. 21.1.2022.

6. The Division Bench judgmen