The court allowed petitioners' inclusion in NRI quota for counselling despite documentation errors, emphasizing the unique circumstances of the case.

COMMON ORDER

These writ petitions have been filed for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioners wherein the petitioners have requested to include their names in the eligibility list for NRI quota published on 04.11.2025 by the 1^st respondent and to permit the petitioner to participate in the NEET PG counselling to be held from 06.11.2025 to 08.11.2025 or on any other future date under the NRI category in the All India quota.

2. When these writ petitions came up for hearing yesterday, this Court directed the learned Senior Central Government panel counsel to take instructions from the respondents and to list the matter for hearing today.

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned Senior Central Government Panel Counsel submitted that the affidavit of sponsorship was given to both the petitioners by one Geetha Baskar. The person, who sponsors must have an NRE account and the relevant particulars must be furnished along with the affidavit of sponsorship. In the case in hand, insofar as the NRE account is concerned, the petitioners have furnished the name of some other person viz., Mr.Baskar Masilamani. There was absolutely no explanation from the side of the petitioners as to how this person is related to the person who had given the affidavit of sponsorship. In view of the same, the names of the petitioners were not included in the list of NRI quota and the window period ended yesterday.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Mr.Baskar Masilamani is none other than the husband of Mrs.Geetha Baskar. The NRE account stands in his name and his wife has given the affidavit of sponsorship for both the petitioners. The learned counsel further submitted that the said Geetha Baskar has an NRE account in her name and the particulars of the same was also placed before this Court.

5. In the considered view of this Court, the petitioners instead of annexing the NRE bank account particulars of the sponsor, by oversight had annexed the NRE bank account status of the sponsor's husband. This mistake does not go to the root of the matter and the candidature of the petitioners should not be rejected on this ground.

6. In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the respondents to act upon the representation made by the petitioners on 05.11.2025 and collect the NRE bank account details of the sponsor from the petitioners and the petitioners on satisfying all the other requirements, shall be included in the list of candidates considered under NRI quota to participate in the NEET PG counselling.

7. It must be made clear that this order should not be taken as a precedent in any other case since in the facts of the present case, this Court found that the petitioners had committed a genuine mistake of annexing the NRE account particulars of the sponsor's husband instead of the NRE bank account details of the sponsor. Therefore, this order will apply only to the facts of this case and it cannot be treated as a precedent.

8. Both these writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms.

No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.