High Court
Facts
1 WP / 9394 / 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 9394 OF 2025Shravan Santosh BhansaliAge : 17 years, Occu. : Student,being minor through his fatherSantosh Kisanlal BhansaliAge 46 years, Occu. : Service,R/o. Housing Society, Ambajogai,District : Beed 431 517..PetitionerVersus1.State of Maharashtra throughThe Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 0012.National Eligibility cum Entrance Test(NEET-UG)National Training Agency,First Floor, NSIC-MDBP Building,Okhla Industrial Estate,New Delhi 110020 3.The Commissioner and Competent Authority,Commissionerate of Common Entrance Test Cell,8th Floor, New Excelsior Building,A.K.Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 4000014.The Director,Medical Education and Research,St. Georges Hospital Compound,Near C.S.M.T., Mumbai 400 001..Respondents...WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 9397 OF 2025Gauravi D/o. Suresh Thorat,Age 17 years, Occu. : Student,being minor through his fatherSuresh Dnyanoba Thorat,Age : 49 years, Occu. : Agriculture ,R/o. Kumbephal, Taluka : Kaij,District : Beed 431 123..Petitioner 2 WP / 9394 / 2025Versus1.State of Maharashtra throughThe Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 0012.National Eligibility cum Entrance Test(NEET-UG)National Training Agency,First Floor, NSIC-MDBP Building,Okhla Industrial Estate,New Delhi 110020 3.The Commissioner and Competent Authority,Commissionerate of Common Entrance Test Cell,8th Floor, New Excelsior Building,A.K.Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 4000014.The Director,Medical Education and Research,St. Georges Hospital Compound,Near C.S.M.T., Mumbai 400 001..Respondents...ANDWRIT PETITION NO. 9406 OF 2025Amit S/o. Bhagwat Munde,Age : 19 years, Occu. : Education,At Devgao, Post and Taluka Kaij,District Beed ..PetitionerVersus1.State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Medical Education & Drugs Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 0322.The State of Maharashtra,Through its secretary,Persons with Disabilities,Welfare Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai3.The Senior Director,Government of India,
Legal Reasoning
12 WP / 9394 / 2025rectification of their forms registered with the respondent no. 2 – NTA inMarch – 2025. If such modification / rectification is permitted, it willdisturb the entire process and it would certainly adversely affect thecandidates who are already correctly placed in the PwD category ofcandidates in the merit list. None of them are before this Court in thesepetitions. It would be unfair and too late in the day to permit themodifications / rectifications sought by the petitioners in these petitions.We do not propose to grant any such relief that would derail the entireprocess and adversely affect the candidates in the PwD category.21.As regards the orders passed at the Principal Seat of thisCourt in the cases of Maitreyai Mahendra Garad V. State ofMaharashtra and others (supra) and Pranav Ajit More V. State ofMaharashtra and others (supra), we find that the subsequent orderpassed by this Court at this Bench in the case of Furquan Farhan BinGanam Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (supra) can berelied upon. In the said order, after quoting clause 9.4.5 of informationbrochure pertaining to NEET – UG – 2024, which was identicallyworded, this Court in the said case, held as follows :-“7. The petitioner submitted his application from general category.At that time, he did not opt for PwD category. He did not submitdisability certificate. When the process reached upto CAP round 3,he sought to change his category from general to PwD. In view ofclause 9.4.5 of NEET-UG-2024, once the candidate has givenoption of a particular category in his original online application,subsequently it is not permissible to change the said category.The petitioner could have opted for PwD quota at the time of 13 WP / 9394 / 2025submission of his original online application before beginning ofthe CAP rounds.8. It reveals that the petitioner is not vigilant and when theadmission process reached upto CAP round 3, he is seekingchange in the category. The clauses 6.1.2 to 6.1.6 are notapplicable. As the request of the petitioner is against the norms,we are not inclined to grant any relief.9. The petitioner is relying upon the orders passed by the co-ordinate Bench in writ petition No. 9069 of 2023, decided on21.07.2023 (Maitreyai Mahendra Garad vs. The State ofMaharashtra and others) and in writ petition No. 11111 of 2024decided on 13.08.2024 (Pranav Ajit More vs. State ofMaharashtra and others). In both the orders, the relevant clause9.4.5. of the brochure has not been considered. Both the orders donot lay down any proposition of law. Considering the difference inthe facts and circumstances, those orders cannot be madeapplicable to the case in hand. We find no substance in thepetition.”22.A distinction was sought to be made on behalf of thepetitioners that since the petitioner in the said case, had approachedthis Court when the process had reached CAP round – III, relianceought not to be placed on the said order. We are unable to accept thesaid contention, for the reason that the petitioners in the present casehave approached at the stage when the counselling and allotment ofseats is to begin and merit lists of the candidates have already beendrawn on the basis of the results of NEET – UG – 2025, category-wiseon the basis of the categories specified by the candidates in theirrespective registered forms. As noted herein-above, the processcannot be upset at this stage, particularly when granting relief to thepetitioners would adversely affect the candidates already in the meritlist in the PwD category.
Arguments
3 WP / 9394 / 2025National Eligibility cum Entrance Test Cell,(UG) - 2023, Nariman Bhawan,New Delhi 110108 4.The Government of Maharashtra,State Common Entrance Test Cell,Maharashtra State, Mumbai,8th Floor, New Excelsior Building,A.K. Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400001..Respondents...Mr. Sudhir D. Patil, Advocate for petitioner in WP/9394/2025 andWP/9397/2025Dr. S.G. Nandedkar, Advocate for petitioner in WP/9406/2025Mr. R.R. Bangar, Advocate for respondent no. 2 in WP/9394/2025 andWP/9397/2025 and for respondent no. 3 in WP/9406/2025Mr. M.D. Narwadkar, Advocate for respondent no. 3 in WP/9394/2025 andWP/9397/2025 and for respondent no. 4 in WP/9406/2025Ms. Neha B. Kamble, Mr. S.V. Hange and Mr. V.M. Kagne, AGPs forrespondent - State... CORAM : MANISH PITALE & Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.DATE : 01 AUGUST 2025JUDGMENT (PER – MANISH PITALE, J.) :Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2.These petitions raise identical issue and hence, they aretaken up for consideration. Although, these petitions are fresh petitionslisted for consideration of this Court, considering the extreme urgencyin the matter and the fact that the contesting respondents haveappeared through counsel, the petitions are taken up for considerationand disposed of. 4 WP / 9394 / 20253.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consentof learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally at thestage of admission.4.The petitioners are seeking a direction against respondentnos. 2, 3 and 4 for permitting modification or rectification in theirapplication forms pertaining to National Eligibility Entrance Test(hereinafter referred to as ‘NEET - UG’) - 2025. The petitioners claimthat they are entitled for such modifications to change their categoryfrom that of open to the Persons with Disability quota (PwD). 5.Respondent no. 2 is the National Training Agency (NTA)that has conducted the NEET - UG – 2025, while respondent no. 3 isthe competent authority of the Common Entrance Test Cell of therespondent - State of Maharashtra and respondent no. 4 is the Directorof Medical Education and Research. 6.Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that due to thepeculiar language used in the form to be filled for NEET UG - 2025, thepetitioners had no option but to state their candidature as that in theopen category. It was emphasized that the application form of therespondent no. 2 - NTA, in the contest of PwD candidates, incorporateda question as to whether the PwD candidate was having a valid andlive disability certificate issued by the Medical Board of Government. 5 WP / 9394 / 2025Petitioners understood the said question to mean existence of adisability certificate recently issued by a Medical Board of theGovernment. It is claimed that the petitioners answered the saidquestion / query in the negative and hence, they were registered in theopen category. All the petitioners claim that they do satisfy therequirements for being considered under the PwD category. 7.It is further emphasized by learned counsel appearing forthe petitioners that the information brochure issued by the respondentno. 3 i.e. Commissioner and Competent Authority, Commissionerate forCommon Entrance Test Cell of the respondent - State, at clause 9.4.5stipulated that PwD candidates were required to submit proof ofdisability by way of a certificate issued by Certificate Issuing Authorityin the year 2025 and that they would have to undergo medicalexamination at any one of the Disability Assessment Boards specifiedin the clause. According to the petitioners, this further confirmed theirbelief that in the absence of such certificate of the year 2025, theycould not have answered the aforesaid query in the registration form ofrespondent no. 2 - NTA filled in March - 2025 in the affirmative. 8.It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent no. 3 -competent authority would be considering their candidature on thebasis of the data filled in the registration forms available with therespondent no. 2 - NTA and hence, they would be considered only in 6 WP / 9394 / 2025the open category, despite the fact that they are PwD candidates andthey now have disability certificates issued by the Government MedicalCollege. On this basis, it is urged that this Court may direct therespondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 to permit the petitioners to modify / rectifytheir forms, to change the category from open category candidates toPwD category candidates. Reliance is placed on orders passed by thisCourt at the Principal Seat dated 21.07.2023 in writ petition no. 9069 of2023 (Maitreyai Mahendra Garad V. State of Maharashtra andothers), dated 13.08.2024 passed in writ petition no. 11111 of 2024(Pranav Ajit More V. State of Maharashtra and others).9.Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3have opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. It issubmitted that if the petitioners indeed belonged to the PwD category,they ought to have filled the forms correctly in March - 2025 whenregistrations were opened by respondent no. 2 - NTA for the NEET -UG - 2025 and it was further submitted that on 17.05.2025, therespondent no. 2 - NTA had issued a public notice, which was also onits website, creating a dedicated E-mail I.D. to receive grievances onlyfrom persons belonging to the PwD category. None of the petitionerssent any such Emails to raise their grievances. It was emphasized thatonce the petitioners themselves had filled their forms with respondentno. 2 - NTA and appeared for the NEET - UG - 2025 examination, as 7 WP / 9394 / 2025open category candidates, at the stage of conducting the rounds forallotment of seats by the respondent no. 3 - competent authority, nochange could be permitted. Reliance was placed on clause 9.4.5 ofthe information brochure issued by the respondent no. 3 - competentauthority. It was submitted that permitting change of category bymodifying their registration forms with respondent no. 2 - NTA, woulddisturb the entire merit list and it would adversely affect thosecandidates whose names are specifically incorporated under the PwDcategory. This would upset the entire process and the same would notbe justified. 10.It was further submitted that the NTA even earlier issued apublic notice on 06.03.2025 providing for correction in particulars of theregistration forms for the NEET - UG - 2025. The registeredcandidates were called upon to access the official website, verify theirparticulars and make correction / modification in their forms till11.03.2025 up to 11.50 pm. This opportunity was also not availed bythe petitioners. On this basis, it was submitted that the petitioners donot deserve any indulgence. 11.As regards the two orders of this Court relied upon by thepetitioners, reliance was placed on order dated 17.10.2024 passed bythis Bench of the High Court in writ petition no. 11618 of 2024(Furquan Farhan Bin Ganam Vs. The State of Maharashtra and 8 WP / 9394 / 2025others). The said two orders of the High Court at the Principal seatwere distinguished and particular reliance was placed on a similarclause 9.4.5 of NEET – UG – 2024, to dismiss the petition filed by anidentically situated candidate, seeking rectification / modification of theform. It is a matter of record that Special Leave Petition (Civil)no. 25499 of 2024 filed by the petitioner therein against the aforesaidorder of this Court, was dismissed by the Supreme Court by an orderdated 24.10.2024, thereby confirming the said order. On this basis, itwas submitted that the petitions deserve to be dismissed.12.Having heard learned counsel for the contesting parties,we find that the petitioners are claiming a direction to modify / rectifytheir registration forms filled with the respondent no. 2 – NTA for theNEET – UG – 2025 examination after the results have been declaredand the stage has come for allocation of seats on the basis of meritlists prepared for different categories.13.It is not disputed that the petitioners themselves filled theforms for the NEET – UG – 2025, specifying themselves as candidatesfrom the open category. They did not choose the category of PwDcandidates despite their claim of belonging to the said category.14.We are unable to appreciate the contention raised onbehalf of the petitioners that the nature of the query in the registration 9 WP / 9394 / 2025form of respondent no. 2 – NTA created confusion and that thepetitioners did not chose the category of PwD candidates as theybelieved that they did not have valid and live disability certificates.There was no reason for such confusion on the part of the petitioners.On the basis of the petitioners having chosen their categories as that of‘open category’ candidates and also having appeared for the NEET –UG – 2025 examination, now at the stage of counselling and allotmentof seats, the petitioners cannot be permitted to turn around for changeof category. The respondent no. 2 – NTA has compiled the results ofthe examination and merit lists have been prepared of each category,including open category as well as PwD category.15.Respondent no. 3 – competent authority of the State hasto undertake the rounds of counselling and admission on the basis ofdata picked up from the respondent no. 2 – NTA as per procedure.Respondent no. 3 – competent authority is bound to implement theclauses specified in the information brochure for admission to thecollege in the State of Maharashtra. The relevant portion of clause9.4.5 of the said information brochure reads as follows :-“9.4.5Person with Disability (PWD) Quota : The candidateshould have claimed the Person with Disability (PWD)quota reservation in the original Online application form.Request for PWD category claim after submission ofapplication form will not be granted. The parallelconstitutional reservation will be applied for PWD quotaseats. The eligibility under PWD quota as prescribed byrespective central Council from time to time will beapplicable. 10 WP / 9394 / 2025As per Medical Council of India, New Delhi amendmentnotification No: MCI-34(41)/2018-Med/170045, dated 5thFeb 2019, CCIM Notification F. No 24-14/2018 (UGRegulation), dated 18/06/2019 and CCH Notification No.12-11/2010-CCH(Pt. II)(1), dated 02/08/2019, Five percent(5%) seats of annual sanctioned intake capacity shall befilled up by candidates with specified benchmarkdisabilities contained in the scheduled to the Rights ofPersons with Disabilities Act, 2016, as per Annexure – D.Constitutional reservation will be applied parallelly withinPWD quota seats.The specified disability categories as mentioned in therights of persons with Disability Act 2016 are as follows. 1. Physical disability2. Intellectual disability 3. Mental behaviour disability 4. Disability caused due to chronic illness5. Multiple disabilities 1. Candidate should mark as PWD in the online applicationform, failing which claim will not be granted. Candidate isrequired to submit the proof of his/her disability by way of acertificate issued by certificate issuing authority in the year2025.”16.A perusal of the above quoted clause shows that therequest for PwD category claim after submission of application formcan not be granted. Note 1 at the bottom of the clause required thePwD candidate to submit the proof of disability by way of a certificateissued by certificate issuing authority in the year 2025. It is obviousthat the aforesaid certificate of the year 2025 is required during thestage of counselling, allotment of seat and the candidate reporting tothe college in which he or she has secured admission.17.This Court is unable to accept the contention raised onbehalf of the petitioner that while filling their forms in March – 2025 on 11 WP / 9394 / 2025the portal of the respondent no. 2 – NTA, they were under someconfusion that latest certificate of the year 2025 was to be kept readyeven while filling the form on the said portal.18. In any case, the aforesaid notice dated 06.03.2025 issuedby the respondent no. 2 – NTA provided a window for correction till11.03.2025 (up to 11.50 pm) for the registered candidates like thepetitioners to visit the official website, verify their particulars and makecorrection or modification in their application forms. Admittedly, thepetitioners did not avail of the said window for correction provided byrespondent no. 2 – NTA.19.Even thereafter, on 17.05.2025, on a direction issued bythe Delhi High Court, respondent no. 2 – NTA created a dedicated E-mail I.D. specifically for receiving the grievances only from candidatesfrom the PwD category. Yet again, the petitioners did not send anyEmail to the NTA. After compiling the results, the respondent no. 2 –NTA has prepared merit list category-wise and since the petitionersregistered themselves as candidates from ‘open category’, they foundthemselves in ‘open category’ and not in the PwD category.20.We are of the opinion that the petitioners at this stage,when the counselling and allotment of the seats to the colleges is tobegin, cannot be heard to say that they are entitled for modification /
Decision
14 WP / 9394 / 202523.In view of the above, we find no merit in the presentpetitions and accordingly, the petitions are dismissed.24.Rule stands discharged.25.Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. [ Y.G. KHOBRAGADE ] [ MANISH PITALE ] JUDGE JUDGEarp/