Allowed

Meghal Agarwal D/O Gyan Chand Jain v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC7 Oct 2024CW/13827/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition filed by a minor student seeking correction of her surname from 'Jain' to 'Agrawal' in her NEET-UG application. Relying on the principle that the law does not concern itself with trifles (de minimis non curat lex), the Court held that since the error was inadvertent, not raised by examiners during the test, and did not confer any unfair advantage, the candidate sh

What did the court decide?

Directing the petitioner to file requisite applications for correction and that her candidature be considered on merits with her surname as per Aadhaar and Senior Secondary Mark-sheet.

Meghal Agarwal D/O Gyan Chand Jain Vs Union of… — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:42151]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13827/2024

¶4

Meghal Agarwal D/o Gyan Chand Jain, Age About 17 Years 11 Month And 20 Days, Resident Of Jain Hospital And FRC Bali Road, Falna, Pali Rajasthan Presently Resident Of 37, Milap Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Minor Through Natural Guardian Renu Gupta W/o Gyan Chand Jain Age 47 Years, Resident Of Jain Hospital And FRC Bali Road, Falna, Pali Rajasthan Presently Resident Of 37, Milap Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union Of India, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Government Of India, Room No. 348, A Wing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.

¶8

National Medical Commission (NMC), Pocket -14, Sector8, Dwarka Phase- 1, New Delhi 110077, Through Its Chairman.

¶9

Rajasthan Medical Council, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Rajasthan Through Its Registrar.

¶10

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health, Secretariat, Janpath, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶11

Chairman, NEET UG Medical And Dental Admission / Counseling Board 2024 And Principal And Controller, Officer Of The Chairman NEET (UG) Medical And Dental Admission, Government Dental College (RUHS) College Of Dental Sciences, Subhash Nagar Behind Tb Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶12

Senior Director, National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (UG) 2022 Through Department Of Higher Education, Ministry Of Education, Government Of India, C-20, IA/8, Sector-62, Iitk Outreach Centre, Noida 201309.

¶13

Director General Of Health Services, Directorate General Of Health Service, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Government Of India, New Delhi.

----Respondents

(2 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:42151]

[CW-13827/2024]

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Arvind Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG with
	Mr. Yash Joshi
	Mr. M.S. Raghav

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment

REPORTABLE

07/10/2024

1 . "To err is human; to forgive, divine," wrote Alexander Pope in "An Essay on Criticism" . This is said qua the criticism of poetic literature; more about the critics approach to the work of others. Is it possible to apply the idea as a principle of remedial resort in legal matters? More particularly, can this idea inspire a selecting body, inviting applications for admissions into premier high education institutions, to allow candidates to correct mistakes subsequently in their application forms about particulars/ credentials – where on merit, the candidate stands provisionally eligible?

¶24

The instant petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶25

“(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondent may be directed to allow the correction in the name of Petitioner as Meghal Agarwal in place of Meghal Jain in the Application of NEET (UG) 2024 for academic session 2024.

¶26

(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondent may be directed to allow the petitioner to participate in counseling of NEET (UG) 2024 for academic session 2024.

¶27

(iii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondent may be directed not to reject her application form bearing no.

(3 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:42151]

[CW-13827/2024]

240411472212 on account of the change of name as Meghal Jain in place of Meghal Agarwal.

¶32

(iv) Any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of petitioner.

¶33

(v) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

¶34

The nitty-gritty of the instant matter is that the petitioner ‘Meghal Agrawal’ daughter of Gyan Chand Jain in the year 2023 appeared in Common University Entrance Test (CUET UG), and subsequently in National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), with the name Meghal Agrawal. Moreover, the documents such as the AADHAR Card, Senior Secondary Examination mark-sheet, passport card, domicile certificate etc. (Annexure-1) also notes the petitioners’ name as ‘Meghal Agrawal’.

¶35

Subsequently, respondents issued a notification for NEET UG Examination, 2024, inviting applications in-between the period form 09.02.2024 and 09.03.2024 (Annexure-2). The exam qua the same was scheduled on 05.05.2024. It is undisputed fact that with the application form certain guidelines (Information Booklet) and eligibility conditions were also released.

¶36

SUBMISSIONS BY THE PETITIONER

¶37

In this backdrop, learned counsel representing the petitioner had submitted that on account of an inadvertent and bonafide mistake, due to certain technical glitch, an error occurred in the application form of the petitioner qua her surname. To be specific instead of ‘Meghal Agrawal’ the surname of the petitioner appeared as ‘Meghal Jain’.

(4 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:42151]

[CW-13827/2024]

It was further contended that the petitioner took the said exam on 05.05.2024, however, due to novice experience could not notice the change in credentials. Nonetheless, the said mistake was not even noticed by the exam conducting authorities whilst checking the identity proof of the petitioner.

¶42

Consequently, the results qua the said examination were declared and the petitioner scored 418 marks, and was declared eligible to appear in the counseling. It was further contended that even in the score-card issued by the respondents, the name of the petitioner was reflected as ‘Meghal Jain’, and being aggrieved of the same, the petitioner (via guardians) had submitted a representation dated 08.08.2024, along with an affidavit of her mother, before the respondents (Annexure-6). However, paying no heed to the said representation, the respondents issued notice, stating that the counseling for NEET UG Examination, 2024 shall be conducted on 14.08.2024 (Annexure-7).

¶43

During the currency of the instant petition, albeit the notices were issued, the admission of the petitioner was denied observing “admission denying as directed by board member of NEET UG counseling and Dr. Raghav (Assistant Nodal Officer, Academic Section RHTMC, Udaipur)”, subsequently on 05.09.2024 an interim order was made operative in favor of the petitioner (one seat being reserved under the said category, subject to the final outcome of the instant matter), and RNT Medical College Udaipur, was directed to reserve a seat under the NRI Category.

¶44

In support of the contentions made insofar reliance is made upon the dictum enunciated in Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs. the

(5 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:42151]

[CW-13827/2024]

State of Bihar & ors. reported in (2024) 1 SCR 1 and Manashvi Pachar vs. Union of India in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11060/2024, and it was contended that the particulars/credentials qua the details of the name of the candidates were auto-filled by the server, therefore, the same could not be rectified by the petitioner.

¶49

SUBMISSIONS BY THE RESPONDENTS

¶50

Learned AAG Mr. Shah had not refuted the fact that one seat qua the petitioner is reserved in RNT Medical College, Udaipur, however, had appraised the Court with the fact that the contesting respondent qua the matter in hand would be respondent no.6NTA.

¶51

At the outset, learned counsel representing the respondentNTA had averred that National Testing Agency is an autonomous self-sustained body established by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (renamed as the Ministry of Education) Government of India, under the Society Registration Act, 1980, for conducting efficient, transparent, and international standards tests in order to assess the competency of candidates for admissions to premier high education institutions. It was further contended that the NEET UG Examination, 2024 was conducted on 05.05.2024 by NTA at the behest of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, with approval of MHRD, strictly in accordance with the norms enshrined under regulation 57 of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997, and section 61(2) of the National Medical Council Act, 2019.

[2024:RJ-JP:42151]

[CW-13827/2024]

(6 of 15)

Further, learned counsel had averred that the National Testing Agency had a limited responsibility qua the said examination i.e. to conduct the entrance examination, declaration of the result and thereafter providing All India Rank(s) (AIR) to the concerned department. It was further contended that as soon as the aforementioned process was completed, the said data was forwarded to Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. Nonetheless, the result and the AIRs for NEET UG Examination, 2024 were prepared/notified by the respondent-NTA in strict subservience of the norms fixed by the NMC/DGHS/NCH/CCH.

¶56

Moreover, the petitioner despite the categorical directions spelled out in the information-booklet of NEET UG Examination, 2024, deliberately filled her name credentials as “Meghal Jain” daughter of Shri Gyan Chand Jain, and accordingly her admit card was issued under the said name. It was then averred that the entry of particulars/credentials of the candidates were autogenerated and the respondent-NTA has no role to play in it. At this juncture, learned counsel had placed reliance upon Clause-6 (NOTE) and clause 11 of the said Information Booklet (Annexure 2) and had submitted that prior to the said examination it was made clear that in no manner, after the completion of the examination process NTA shall edit/alter/modify any information entered by the candidates. For sake of convenience the relevant relied provisions from the said Information Booklet is reproduced herein below:

(7 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:42151]

[CW-13827/2024]

“ 6. Instructions for filling Online Application Form:

¶61

……. [Note: The Candidate has to upload only his/her own photograph, signature, Left and Right Hand Fingers and Thumb impression, and certificate(s) as mentioned above (and not of anybody else) in a correct/proper manner, as the facility for correction will not be given in future . In case, it is found at any time in the future that the Candidates has used/uploaded the photograph, Left and Right hand Fingers and Thumb impression, signature, and certificate(s) of someone else in his/her Application Form/Admit Card, or he/she has tampered his/her Admit Card/result/Scorecard, these acts of the candidate shall be treated under Unfair Means (UFM) Practices and actions(s) will be taken as detailed under the provisions of the Information Bulletin relating to Unfair Means Practices.

¶62

11. NTA does not edit/modify/alter any information entered by the candidates after completion of the application process under any circumstances. Any request for change in information thereafter will not be entertained. Therefore, candidates are advised to exercise utmost caution before filling up the correct details in the Application Form.”

¶63

Likewise, the petitioner had also failed to avail the remedy in pursuance to the public notice dated 13.03.2024 and 10.04.2024 (Annexure-R/6/1 and R/6/2), which pertains to correction in particulars of the online application form for NEET UG Examination, 2024. Furthermore, learned counsel had averred that if inspite of the fact that the petitioner had failed to avail the remedy provided to the candidates qua correction in their particulars/credentials, at this belated stage an opportunity is granted, the said action will act as a precedent and will open a

[2024:RJ-JP:42151]

[CW-13827/2024]

(8 of 15)

pandora’s box for endless litigations, qua the same issue in various entrance/public exams forbye, the judicial review ought not to be made in the decisions which were per se taken by the academic bodies, considering the policy of the concerned department. Lastly, learned counsel representing the respondentNTA had averred that the present petition is filed at a belated stage, as the counseling is ongoing and the NTA had already handed over the list of the eligible candidates to DGHS.

¶68

OBSERVATION

¶69

Upon an assiduous scanning of the record, considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, considering the judgments cited at the Bar and taking note of the arguments averred by the learned counsel for all the parties, this Court at this juncture, deems it appropriate to jot down indubitable facts:-

¶70

15.1 That the instant petition is filed by the minor-petitioner via her natural guardian. Moreover, the petitioner is a meritorious student, who had appeared in the NEET UG Examination, 2024; who on account of a bonafide error and inadvertent mistake and due to technical glitch had mis-filled her surname credentials/particulars.

¶71

15.2 That the public documents (identity proofs) of the petitioner i.e. AADHAR card, Senior Secondary mark-sheet, passport card, CUET UG Examination, 2023 Application Form (Also issued by respondent-NTA), Domicile Certificate (Annexure-1) reflects her name as “ Meghal Agrawal ” daughter of Shri Gyan Chand Jain and Smt. Renu Gupta. It is pertinent to note that the

(9 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:42151]

[CW-13827/2024]

lis in question only pertains to the petitioner’s surname, and not her first-name –“Meghal”.

¶76

15.3 That upon a perusal of the records it is noted that the surnames of the parents of the petitioner are also distinguishable.

¶77

15.4 That notwithstanding anything, it is a settled position of law as per the statutory provisions of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 sections 74(1), 75, 78 and 80 (Erstwhile provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, sections 74, 76, 79 and 81) that the Court shall presume the genuineness of every public document.

¶78

15.5 The petitioner has filed a representation dated 08.08.2024 (Annexure-6) for correction of the particulars/credentials of the petitioner’s surname (duly annexed with her Senior Secondary and Secondary Board mark-sheets) before the concerned authorities.

¶79

CONCLUSION

¶80

Ergo, considering the aforementioned facts of the instant matter, juxtaposing the averments raised by the learned counsel for both the sides, scanning the judgments cited at the Bar, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the instant petition for the following reasons:

¶81

16.1 Considering the factual aspect of the instant matter, it can be deduced that the petitioner appeared in the NEET UG Examination, 2024 on 05.05.2024 with distinguishable particulars/credentials in her admit card (issued by respondentNTA) and her original ID card (any public document), as the admit card reflects the surname of the petitioner as “Meghal Jain” and

(10 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:42151]

[CW-13827/2024]

the identity proof of the petitioner reflects her surname as “Meghal Agrawal”. Albeit the said fact was evident on the date of examination, no objection was raised/made by the examiner, and the petitioner was granted permission to appear in the said examination.

¶86

16.2 It is presumed that due to naïve age no remedy is availed by the petitioner in pursuance to the public notices dated 13.03.2024 and 10.04.2024, nonetheless, the said change in credentials of the petitioner’s name was not objected/ made subject to disqualification by the respondent-NTA. Moreover, an admit card was issued by the respondents, and the petitioner was permitted to appear in the exam, even with distinguishable surname in the admit card and the identity proofs.

¶87

16.3 Substantial proofs (AADHAR Card, and Senior Secondary Board mark-sheets- Annexure-1) are placed on record to corroborate the contentions made by the learned counsel representing the petitioner qua the correctness of the surname as “Meghal Agrawal” instead of ‘Meghal Jain’.

¶88

16.4 Moreover, the petitioner scored 418 marks in the said examination, resultant to which she is provisionally allotted RNT Medical College, Udaipur qua which she has already deposited (via cheque) an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) as a mandate for counseling (in the name of Chairman NEET UG counseling, 2024).

¶89

16.5 In the foregoing facts and circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to place reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in Vashist Narayan Kumar (Supra). Explicating it further, it can

[2024:RJ-JP:42151]

[CW-13827/2024]

(11 of 15)

be inferred that under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the error was so grave as to constitute wrong or misleading information; there is an exception for trivial errors or omissions as law does concern itself with trifles. This principle is even recognized as de minimis non curat lex meaning the law does not concern itself with trifles. It's a legal principle that states the law doesn't take notice of minor or insignificant matters, and therefore doesn't require judicial scrutiny. Withal, the petitioner derived no advantage from the said error. The relevant extract from the afore-cited ratio is reproduced herein below:

¶94

“14. We are not impressed with the argument of the State that the error was so grave as to constitute wrong or mis-leading information. We say on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Even the State has not chosen to resort to any criminal action, clearly implying that even they did not consider this error as having fallen foul of the following clause in the advertisement:-

¶95

“Instructions to fill online application form are available on the website. It is recommended to all the candidates to carefully read the instructions before filling the online application form and kindly fill the appropriate response in the following tabs. In case, the information given by the candidates found wrong or misleading, the application form will get rejected and necessary criminal actions will also be taken against the candidate.”

¶96

15. Recently this Bench in Divya vs. Union of India & Ors. , 2023:INSC:900 = 2023 (13) Scale 730, while declining relief to candidates who acquired eligibility after the date mentioned in the notification carved out a narrow exception. There, the judgment in Ajay Kumar

(12 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:42151]

[CW-13827/2024]

Mishra vs. Union of India & Ors. , [2016] SCC Online Del 6563, a case very similar to the facts of the present case, was noted. In Ajay Kumar Mishra (supra) , Indira Banerjee, J. (as Her Ladyship then was) speaking for the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in para 9 stated as under:-

¶101

9. It is true that whenever any material discrepancy is noticed in the application form and/or when any suppression and/or misrepresentation is detected, the candidature might be canceled even after the application has been processed and the candidate has been allowed to participate in the selection process. However, after a candidate has participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully, his candidature can only be cancelled, after careful scrutiny of the gravity of the lapse, and not for trivial omissions or errors.”

¶102

The exception for trivial errors or omissions is for the reason that law does not concern itself with trifles. This principle is recognized in the legal maxim- De minimis non curat lex.”

¶103

16.6 Additionally, reliance can be placed upon the dictum enunciated in Divya vs. Union of India and ors. reported in 2023 (13) Scale 730 and it can be deduced that after a candidate had successfully participated in the selection process and has qualified all the stages successfully, his/her candidature can only be canceled after a cautious scrutiny of the gravity of the omission of error and not merely qua certain trifles.

¶104

16.7 Moreover, as per the opinion spelled out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav Thru Her Father vs Central Board for Secondary Education reported in (2021) 7 SCC 535

[2024:RJ-JP:42151]

[CW-13827/2024]

(13 of 15)

that “name is an intrinsic element of identity”. The name of the individual and his identity go hand in hand, and to be identified in a certain way is the choice or preference of the individual, this Court observes no bar as to why the same cannot be done in the matter in hand. Withal, it is pertinent to note that if the balance of convenience tilts in favor of the candidate, who shall bear appalling consequences, due to the said error. The relevant extract from the said ratio is reiterated herein below:

¶109

“132. It would not be out of place to note that the two parties here-the Board and studentsare not in an equal position of impact. In other words, the balance of convenience would tilt in favour of students. For, they stand to lose more due to inaccuracies in their certificates than the Board whose sole worry is increasing administrative burden. The obligation of Board to take additional administrative burden is no doubt onerous but the propensity of a student losing career opportunities due to inaccurate certificate is unparalleled . Illustratively, a juvenile Accused of being in conflict with the law or a victim of sexual abuse whose identity gets compromised due to lapses by media or the investigative body, despite there being complete legal protection for the same, may consider changing the name to seek rehabilitation in the society in exercise of her right to be forgotten. If the Board, in such a case, refuses to change the name, the student would be compelled to live with the scars of the past. We are compelled to wonder how it would not be a grave and sustained violation of fundamental rights of the student. In such circumstances, the avowed public

(14 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:42151]

[CW-13827/2024]

interest in securing rehabilitation of affected persons would overwhelm the Board's interest in securing administrative efficiency. In fact, it would be against the human dignity of the student, the protection whereof is the highest duty of all concerned. A Board dealing with maintenance of educational standards cannot arrogate to itself the power to impact identity of students who enroll with it. The right to control one's identity must remain with the individual, subject, of course, to reasonable restrictions as observed above and as further discussed later.”

¶114

17. In summation to the afore-discussed facts and circumstances of the instant matter, it can be noted that taking a liberal and sympathetic approach qua the matter in hand, considering the tough-grind efforts that the minor-petitioner has put in, to stand meritorious in the said exam; especially taking note of the provisions enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the fact that due to an inadvertent and bonafide mistake, the rights of the minor-petitioner cannot be jeopardized; the identity proofs placed on record (which are public documents – identity proofs i.e. Passport Card, Senior Secondary Mark-sheet, AADHAR Card) which reflect the name of the petitioner as “Meghal Agrawal”, and the overall facts and circumstances of the instant matter, this Court deems it apposite to direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner on merits, without being influenced by the change in credentials i.e. “Meghal Jain” to be considered as “Meghal Agrawal”. Henceforth, qua the admission process of NEET UG Examination, 2024, name of the petitioner be considered as “Meghal Agrawal” instead of ‘Meghal Jain’.

(15 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:42151]

[CW-13827/2024]

18. In above terms, the instant petition is allowed with the following directions:

¶119

18.1 That the petitioner is directed to file requisite applications, before the concerned /appropriate authorities/ respondent-NTA for correction/consideration of the change in credentials/particulars.

¶120

18.2 That during the course of admission under the said Medical Institute the surname credentials of the petitioner be considered as per the Senior Secondary Mark-sheet and AADHAR Card of the petitioner.

¶121

18.3 That in no manner the rights of the petitioner should be jeopardized due to the change in credentials of her surname, and her candidature be considered strictly on the basis of the merit scored.

¶122

19. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed with the aforementioned directions. No orders as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶123

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶124

DEEPAK/7

Meghal Agarwal D/O Gyan Chand Jain v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meghal Agarwal D/O Gyan Chand Jain v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Kumar Son of Shri Ramesh Chand Jangid Vs State of Rajasthan

Pawan @ Pankhya S/O Suresh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhupendra Singh S/O Shree Amar Singh, Vs Rajnish Chauhan S/O Shree Tejpal Singh

Amarsingh S/O Madansingh Vs State of Rajasjthan

Jagdish Mahar Son of Shri Hanuman Prasad, Vs State of Rajasthan

Kaptan Singh S/O Edal Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan