Legal Articles | Court & Judgment Updates

Merit Overcome Technical Hurdles: High Court Orders NEET Admission for Students Denied Seats Over Document Glitch in Hasty Counselling

Jaipur, [Insert Date]: In a significant judgment, the High Court of Rajasthan has directed the National Testing Agency (NTA) and other respondent authorities to grant admission to meritorious students in the NEET UG 2024 MBBS/BDS Stray Vacancy Round, whose candidature was rejected over the non-submission of a Class XI mark sheet explicitly mentioning ' Biology '. The Court found the denial arbitrary, particularly given the challenges faced by students promoted during the COVID-19 pandemic and the hasty scheduling of the counselling process during public holidays.

Justice SameerJain presided over a batch of writ petitions, taking Kanchan Kumawat Vs. Union of India and ors. as the lead case. The core issue revolved around the denial of seats to students who were higher in merit than those ultimately allotted colleges, solely because their Class XI mark sheets did not list subjects, a common outcome of mass promotions during the COVID-19 pandemic as directed by government orders.

Case Background and Arguments:

The petitioners had appeared in the NEET UG 2024 examination and participated in the Stray Vacancy Round counselling, which commenced with a notification on October 23, 2024. The document verification was scheduled for a narrow window on October 28, 2024. Petitioners, possessing the requisite Class X and XII mark sheets (which showed Biology as a subject in Class XII) and other documents, were asked by officials to furnish an affidavit or certificate specifying Biology in Class XI.

Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that they had informed the authorities about the COVID-19 promotions, where Class XI mark sheets often did not detail subjects. They submitted an affidavit as directed and, crucially, obtained and submitted a provisional certificate from their school principal on October 31, 2024, immediately after the Diwali holidays (October 28 to November 3), confirming they had studied Biology in Class XI. Despite this, their names were excluded from the final allotment list published on October 30, while less meritorious candidates (Respondent Nos. 5 and 6) were allotted seats. They contended that the counselling was scheduled in extreme haste during holidays, preventing timely submission of documents in the prescribed format, and that the denial violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21. Reliance was placed on judgments like Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma University and Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman JEE , emphasizing that merit should not be defeated by technicalities, especially when the candidate is not at fault and acts diligently.

Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents (State, NMC, NTA) argued that the Information Bulletin and NMC Regulations mandated the submission of the Class XI mark sheet with relevant subjects for eligibility in the Stray Vacancy Round. They emphasized that the NEET schedule is strictly followed as per Supreme Court directives and any modification could have pan-India repercussions. They also stated that the Stray Vacancy Round does not create vested rights and that approximately 19 candidates, including the petitioners, failed to submit the required promotion certificate showing Biology . They cited judgments like Ramkrishna Medical College Hospital & Research Centre and S. Krishna Sradha .

Court's Findings and Rationale:

Justice Jain meticulously examined the timeline, noting the document verification was scheduled for a mere three hours on October 28, falling within the period of public and office holidays extending up to November 3. The Court applied Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, finding that the petitioners, by submitting the certificate on October 31 (the day after holidays), acted within due time.

The Court highlighted that the petitioners' Class XII mark sheets clearly showed Biology as a subject, and the respondents failed to provide a convincing rationale for mandatorily requiring the Class XI mark sheet to also depict the subject, especially under the unique circumstances of COVID-19 promotions.

Pivotal to the judgment was the reliance on the principle laid down in Asha (Supra) , which states that a cut-off date or technical requirement should not be used to deny admission to a meritorious student when they are not at fault, have pursued their rights diligently, and there is a fault or arbitrary action by the authorities. The Court reiterated that merit must be the exclusive criteria for admission to MBBS/BDS courses, citing Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India . The Court found that the petitioners' situation fell into the category of "rarest of rare cases" warranting judicial intervention.

The Court also distinguished the judgments cited by the respondents, noting that Ramkrishna Medical College Hospital & Research Centre pertained to interim orders for seat issuance and Premsukh had merely directed consideration in subsequent rounds, neither directly addressing the core issue of merit being defeated by a document technicality under peculiar circumstances. The Court quoted Dolly Chhanda (Supra) , which allows for relaxation in the submission of proof of eligibility, even if not the eligibility itself, stating that "Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature."

Decision and Implications:

Finding fault with the respondents' hasty schedule and rigid adherence to a technical requirement under the given circumstances, the Court allowed the petitions.

The judgment directs the respondents to:

Consider the candidature of the petitioners strictly on the basis of the merit scored by them in the NEET UG Examination, 2024.

Allot Medical Colleges based on their merit.

Reject/cancel the candidature/allotment granted to Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, who were less meritorious than the petitioners.

Carry out the necessary actions without delay, noting that classes for the academic year have already commenced.

The judgment underscores the principle that administrative convenience and technical rules should not override the fundamental right to equality and the principle of meritocracy, particularly when authorities' actions contribute to the candidate's inability to comply strictly with a procedural requirement, and the candidate demonstrates diligence in rectifying the situation. The ruling provides relief to students affected by the specific challenges of COVID-era promotions and administrative haste in critical admission processes.