Petitioner's candidature for NEET-UG counselling was denied due to a technical glitch during online application despite fee payment and registration acknowledgment. The High Court upheld manual application offline.
Petitioner permitted to apply for counselling via offline/manual mode application submission forthwith.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2025:RJ-JP:29962]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11920/2025
Ms Yashita Mahajan (Minor) D/o Shri Siddharth Mahajan, Aged About 17 Years, Presently Resident Of C-Ii/41, Tilak Lane, New Delhi-110001, Through Father And Natural Guardian Shri Siddharth Mahajan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat through VC |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Yash Joshi for |
| Mr. Vigyan Shah,AAG |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
05/08/2025
[2025:RJ-JP:29962]
[CW-11920/2025]
(2 of 4)
successfully registered and the Registration ID RM5608 was allotted to the petitioner withal, the fee amount of Rs. 2,500/- was also accepted, howsoever, on account of technical glitch on the part of the respondents or for the reasons beyond the petitioner’s control in spite of all bonafides, the claim of the petitioner was not considered and because of which she is ousted from the counselling.
4 . Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Joshi has submitted that the respondents have created a software and online mode of application submission for convenience of students/candidates. It is also submitted that State does not draw any benefit by rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. It is also only an exceptional case however, there are no cogent reasons that as to why out of lacs of candidates the case of the petitioner is to be treated as exception. It is submitted that upon such short notices, it will be inappropriate to state any justification vis-a-vis the consideration of claim qua the State. It is an admitted fact that as on date 3rd
[2025:RJ-JP:29962]
[CW-11920/2025]
(3 of 4)
party rights are not created, however entertaining the present plea shall open a Pandoras’ box.
“5. Having heard the contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties, taking note of the material available on record; that the delay so caused is beyond control of the petitioner; that no third party rights are created as on date; that judicial parity as that with the ratio encapsulated in Dr. Pritam Yadav (Supra) is to be maintained, this Court invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, directs the respondents to accept the application of the petitioner-candidate via offline mode/manually, along with requisite fee and other formalities from the petitioner, if filed within a period of twenty four hours from the date of passing of this order.
6. The present petition is accordingly, allowed. However, it is made clear that the present order will not be treated as a precedent, as it is passed under special circumstances.”
(4 of 4)
[2025:RJ-JP:29962]
[CW-11920/2025]
their selection and stood high in merit, there is a distinct between substantial and procedural breach, if the substantial condition of the merit is complied with, one has to be very liberal if there is a procedural breach beyond control of the petitioner more so when 3rd party rights are not created.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
DEEPAK/s-155
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner should be allowed to apply for medical counselling manually despite an online registration failure due to a technical glitch.
Whether the technical glitch affecting the petitioner's application warrants an exception to the standard process of counseling.
Whether the substantial compliance of merit warrants lenient treatment in procedural breach when third-party rights are not created.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Praveen Kumar vs. Chairman, NEET PG Admission/Counselling BoardApplied¶2
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11261/2025 titled as Praveen Kumar vs. Chairman, NEET PG Admission/Counselling Board decided vide judgment dated 23.07.2025
Dr. Pritam YadavApplied¶28
Dr. Pritam Yadav (Supra)
Ms Yashita Mahajan
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
Director, Department Of Medical Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur
Chairman, Neet Ug Medical And Dental Admission / Counseling Board, Sms Medical College, Jln Marg, Jaipur302004
SAMEER JAIN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
