The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.23422 of 2025 Sanjivani Das …. Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. S. Barik, Advocate -versus- Union of India and others …. Opp. Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. Kaibalya Panda, CGC (for O.Ps.1 and 2) Mr. Ajay Kumar Roy, Sr. Panel Counsel (for O.P. No.3) Mr. Subir Palit, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Amitabh Mishra, Advocate (for O.P. No.4) CORAM: JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
Decision
ORDER 22.12.2025 (Hybrid Mode) Order No. 05. 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed memo of date stating the following: “The petitioner does not want to proceed with the Writ Petition. Hence the matter may kindly be permitted to withdraw.” (sic) The memo is taken on record. Page 1 of 11 2. The petitioner is a candidate who has stated to have applied for selection for admission to MBBS Course on the basis of appearing NEET (UG) 2025 MBBS seeking admission under All India quota as well as the State Medical College under Odisha Joint Entrance Examination (OJEE) as stated in the writ petition. 3. Pursuant to notices issued by the Court the opposite parties no.1, 2 and 3 through the DSGI have filed their counter. Mr. Mishra, learned instructing counsel appearing along with Mr. Subir Palit, learned Sr. Advocate for opposite party no.4- OJEE, has filed counter today in Court. In both the counter affidavits the stand of the opposite parties are very clear and unequivocal that the contentions raised by the student-petitioner are incorrect and they are liable to be rejected. 4. The student in the petition is suggesting a rank in NEET which would enable her to secure admission as stated in the writ petition. The suggested rank has been stoutly denied by all the opposite parties. 5. However, since by filing memo the writ petition is withdrawn, we refrain from examining the claims of the petitioner made in the writ petition but suffice it would be to observe that the claims of the petitioner have been disputed and denied by the opposite parties. 6. By going through the annexures to the writ petition, we had observed by order dated 16.12.2025 at paragraph-7 thus: “7. It has come to our notice that the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC), Director General, Health Services (DGHS), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India has accepted the fee for registration Page 2 of 11 as indicated in Annexure-3 (page-13-14 of the Writ Petition). The learned DSGI submits that he has to obtain instruction from the MCC, DGHS, Ministry of H&FW, GoI given some time. We require responsible official of the M.C.C. to remain present either in V.C. or physically before the Court to assist us regarding the mode of assistance of the registration fees etc.” 7. In response to the above order Mr. B.K. Sahu, Director (Legal), NTA of Opposite Party No.2 is present in person before us. Dr. B. Srinivas, Deputy Director General Health Services, Health & Family Welfare Department, Govt. of India and Secretary, Medical Counseling Committee (MCC) is present in VC. We appreciate both Dr. Srinivas and Mr. Sahu being present before us to assist in effective adjudication of the matter. 8. During proceedings of the Court today in presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned DSGI, the CGC, the Senior Panel Counsel and the officials present in person and VC, we had drawn their attention to the pages 13 and 15 of the writ petition. Page-13 is the receipt of deposit of refundable registration fee of Rs.2,05,000/- for MCC. Page-15 is the fee payment receipt of non-refundable Registration fee of Rs.1,000/- for OJEE. 9. Responding to the query of the Court regarding mentioning of the rank details and marks secured in NEET in the receipt, the Deputy Director General-cum-Secretary, MCC has forwarded soft copies of the registration done through e-counseling service by the MCC, DGHS, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of India, NEET UG Counseling for MBBS, BDS & B.Sc. nursing 2025. Page 3 of 11 10. The soft copy was printed in the printing system available in the Court. Copies are made available to the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned DSGI, CGC, Sr. Panel Counsel and Mr. Mishra appearing for OJEE. 11. It is stated and submitted by the Deputy Director General and Secretary, MCC that it is evident that the details of data of the candidate available with the NTA is auto populated, when the student-candidate joins the online e-counselling. We find that the counselling form which has been printed runs to five pages. However the student-petitioner for reasons best known to her has not filed the same before this Court. For convenience of reference, the Counselling Form is reproduced herein in the next pages. Page 4 of 11 Page 5 of 11 Page 6 of 11 Page 7 of 11 Page 8 of 11 Page 9 of 11 12. Perusal of the Counseling Form indicates that the candidate’s All India Rank (NEET UG Medical) is mentioned as 834597. The bank details of deposit of registration fee is clearly mentioned. The bank details for refund of the fees is mentioned. 13. Though, we are dismissing the writ petition; but after we have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and the discussions we had with the responsible officials of NTA as well as DDG-cum-Secretary, MCC, we record a suggestion to the extent that the document like fee payment receipt issued by the MCC may contain the details such as All India Rank and marks so that the receipt cannot be used in isolation. The suggestion has to be acted upon by the authority if it is found suitable after detailed deliberations at their level. It is also suggested the receipt generated can be the last page of the entire documents in continuous pages. The pagination itself would indicate that the first pages indicating/containing the details are already there. 14. Mr. Mishra learned instructing counsel appearing along with Mr. Palit, learned Sr. Advocate for the OJEE submits that the amount of Rs.1000/- is non-refundable but they will also act upon the suggestions made by the Court after the discussions in the Court today regarding improving the system for capturing more data making it more transparent as well as ensuring integrity and to make it more resistant to further manipulation and misuse. Page 10 of 11 15. The writ application is dismissed. The observations made by us are to be considered by the opposite parties and shall be implemented if so advised. (Manash Ranjan Pathak) Judge (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge Radha/Gs Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RADHARANI JENA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 08-Jan-2026 17:24:30 Page 11 of 11