High Court · 2025

2. M/s.Sri Chaitanya Junior Kalasala, represented by its Principal, G Ashok having Office af Sy. No. 166/6, Beside Oakridge lnternational School, Bowaiampet, Dundigal - Gangimaisamma Mandal, Medhcal, Telangan-a 3. State of Telangana, Represented by Principal Secretary Department of Education Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 004

4. State of Telangana, Repiesented by Principal Secretary Medical and Health Department Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 004

5. Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, Represented by its Secretary, North Block, 6. National Medical Commission Pockel14, Section-8, Dwarka Phase-1 , New New Delhi -1 10 001 Delhi- 110077' ...RE'P.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High 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 Not 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 equit),. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in rsupport of the petition, the High court may be pteased to direct the Respondent Nr:.1 to allow the petitioner/Respondent No.2 .:o provide the required documents offline and to accept the payment of the Applir;ation fee from the Petitioner/Respondent No.2 in alternative modes by way of l\EFT/Demand Draft and also to direct the Respondent No.'1 to allow the petition*r to appear in NEET (UG) - 2025 going to be hetd on 04-05.2O2b. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KARAN TALWAR Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1,5 & 6: SRt cADl PRAVEEN KUMAR, Deputy Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Gp FOR EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.4: cp FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & f:W Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: - The Court made the following: ORDER Solicitor General of India THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF WSTICE SUJOY PAUL THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA AND WRIT PETITION No.1343O of'2o25 ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chtef Justice Sujog Paut) Sri Karal Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent Nos. I and 5

2. Heard on admission. a 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 partrcularly 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 NtrET (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 Drafr, 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 Iit 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 t 2 .( cum Entrance l'est (NtrET) (Under Graduate)' the pe'itioner was soiely dependerlt on respondent No'2' rt'ho assured tLle petitioner to fill up the for:n in totality' The petitioner also paid the requisite amount to resipondent No'2' Respondent No'2 is the c:rllege where the petitioner is presently studying' However' the petitioner could gather later or that the form for NEET examination u as not filied up in complett: bv respondent No 2 and the same is 'rvident from Annexure P. I -. wherein it is mentioned that "Exanr 1nation Fee It is submitted that thr reasons for NOT paid / incr,rnplete Form". submission cf incomplete form is solely attributable to respondent No.2 and it rves beyond the control of the petitiorer' In this peculiar circunrstance, appropriate order may be pasrled directing the respondenl.s to accept the petitioner's form and 'ate fees ln order to bo lst-er his submission that the mistal':e happened because of tie reason which u'as beyond the cc'ntrol of the petitioner, lerarned counsel for the petitioner placed r-eliance on a lega,l maxim t r:., lex non cogit ad' impossibilia' By plzr'cing reliance on the decisr.on of the High Court of Madras in P'Swetha v' Central Board of Secondary Educationl, learned c(runsel for the petitioner submits that although in the satci case' the question ' 20t7 SCC OnLil1,: l'4ad 1400 3 was regarding late fees and delay occurred because 9f 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 filt up the form with accuracy He cannot shift the burden on respondent No 2 By issuing pubiic notice dated

07.o2.2o25,theNationa'lTestingAgencymadeitclearaboutthe last date and the formalities to be fuifilled' The petitioner' after having failed to fiil up the form in totality and fulfill the requisite formalities, cannot claim the benefits. In suPPort of his Solicitor General of India Placed submissions, learned DePutY reliance on the decision of the High court of Karnataka in Dinesh Nadurmathv.Unionoflndia(w.P.No.76o6of2o25,dated i9.03.2025) 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' d'ated 27 'O3'2O25\' Ik'q&- t; 4 6 In rej oinrlr:r submission, learned counsel ror rh e pctitioner placed reliar-rce on the recent decision of the Suprenre court in Om Gurusai Construction Company v. V.N.Reddy2 to clraw an analogr that thr. technicalities should not come in the lr,ay of the Court for grantrrLg appropriate relief.

7. The parties have confined their arguments ro the extent indicated abor,e ,ard no other point is pressed. B Hearcl ttre learned counsel for the parties and prs1lr5sfl ths record

9. At the or-rlset, we may deem it proper to observe that when an examinatir:n of this nature is being conduct,:d ald a notification is issued inviting candidature, it is for the c indidate to fill up his form rvith accuracy and precision ancl subrrit it before the last date of submission of candidature. The petitirner is not supposed to oursource this responsibility to respondent No.2 and cannot then szLl that because of the fault of responderLt No.2, he cannot be madr: to suffer. In fact, a different maxtm, in our opinion, is applicable i.e., frustra legis auxilium inuocat quaerit qui '? 2023 SCC Online sc 1t 5 I 5 in legem committit. In other words, a person cannot claim the benefit of his own wrong (See Perry v' Fitzhowes and Unioa of India v. Maj. Gen. Madal Lal-Yadava)'

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 lf the form was not filled up compietely, 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 sa-id decision cannot be stretched in the factual backdrop of the present matter. Similarly, the decision of the Supreme Court in Om Gurusai Coastruction Company (supra) is also on a different factual matrix and laid down the principle of law in that backdrop' 'ire+o; s qe zsr : 1s LJ QB 239 o (1996) 4 scc 12? I I I i t1 t ,l l] i{'.,k 6

12. The High Oourt of Karnataka in Dinesh Nadurmath (supra) and the High Court of Judicature at Bombal, Bench at Auralgabad ir: Namrata Sanjay Sarkate (supra) herve declined interference u-h.re the application was not complete ar d courd not be liled belor: he last date ol submission ol candidature. The High Court of ,Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aur angabad in Namrata Sanjay Sarkate (supra) placed reliarce on a -rudgment of the Suprcme Crourt in Vanshika yadav v. Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No.335 /2024, dated 02.O8.20241.

13. In our oprrLion, the petitioner cannot succeed bv shifting the responsibilitv orL respondent No.2. After having faileC to filt up and submit the lbrm in totality within the stipurated tinre, no relief is due to the .pr:ritioner in discretionary jurisdiction of this court under Article |2'),6 of the Constitution of India, more srr, u,hen the last date of submission of candidat,re was 07 .03.20,..15 and the examination is sr:heduled on 04.OS.2O2S. (* 14 The r,vrit petition is, therefore, dismissed. No crrder as to costs. 1 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/--S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO ISTANT REGISTRAR A I I ,/TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER TOPUCI

1. One CC to SRI KARAN TALWAR, Advocate tOlupl i. 5;; cc i; sRi GADI pRavEEU kUrrlAn De'puty sSlicitor General of lndia s. iio"'c''i. to Gp FOR EDUCATTON, High court for the state of relangana, at iili"5t3?" t?"'A* MEDI.AL HEALTH & FW, Hish court ror the state or Telangana, at HYderabad. [OUT] Two CD CoPies 4 To 5 PSK. PSK HIGH COURT DATED:291A412025 ORDER WP.No.13430 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS CC TODAY /'.: \;- r ' 1 1[ [?fl 2$s :.tr- v a * :i/ ;,, q