ORDER : 1. The instant petition is filed with the following prayers: “(i) By appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent may be directed to allow necessary corrections i.e. ‘Manashvi Pachar’ may be replaced from ‘Manshvi’ in the application form of the petitioner for issuance of ‘Ward of IP certificate’. (ii) Consequently, her name may be included in the list of ‘Ward of IP’ and ‘Ward of IP Certificate’ may be issued to her which allows her to be considered for UG MBBS seat. (iii) Any other just and suitable order in favour of the petitioner may also be passed.” 2. The factual narrative of the matter in hand is that the respondents issued an admission notice on 24.04.2024, inviting applications for issuance of ‘Ward of Insured Persons’ Certificate (hereinafter, referred as IP Certificate) for admission in under-graduate courses such as MBBS/BDS/B.Sc Nursing in ESIC Medical/Dental/Nursing Colleges, and certain other Government Medical Colleges, under the seats allocated for the ‘Wards of Insured Persons’ category, for the academic session 2024-25. It is pertinent to mention that the said admission notice categorically stated the procedure to apply, the requisite documents that were supposed to be uploaded, and the cut-off date of the said application forms. 3. Pursuant to the said admission notice, the petitioner filled her application form on 05.05.2021. It would be apposite to state that the E-Pehchan Card (Insurance No. 1511378227) of the mother of the petitioner i.e. Smt. Koushalya Devi has been issued way back in the year 2021, when the petitioner was a student of IX standard. In the family details section of the said card, the name of the petitioner has been mentioned as ‘Manshvi’. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner has applied for NEET (UG), 2024 Examination wherein, she has filled the form under the name ‘Manashvi Pachar’. Along with all the other requisite documents, such as the Secondary School Mark-sheet (Year 2022), the petitioner has also uploaded her and her mother’s non-judicial affidavit wherein, her name is reflected as ‘Manashvi Pachar’ and her beneficiary IP Certificate ID as 1511378227 (Annexure-3). To substantiate the aforementioned the petitioner has also annexed a copy of her NEET (UG) Examination, 2024 admit card and application form wherein, her name is reflected as ‘Manashvi Pachar’ (Annexure-5) and her updated AADHAR Card (Annexure-6). 5. To substantiate the aforementioned the petitioner has also annexed a copy of her NEET (UG) Examination, 2024 admit card and application form wherein, her name is reflected as ‘Manashvi Pachar’ (Annexure-5) and her updated AADHAR Card (Annexure-6). 5. Howsoever, the respondents have rejected the petitioner’s application form qua issuance of IP Certificate, due to the mismatch of the credentials of the petitioner’s name in her mother’s certificate under which she is a beneficiary and the other documents. 6. In this backdrop, learned counsel representing the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner through a cyber café filled her application form for issuance of IP Certificate on 05.05.2024. However, due to a technical glitch the petitioner could not check the correction necessitated or status of her application form. Thereafter, the petitioner’s application for issuance of IP Certificate remained pending till 27.05.2024 and the online portal closed on 30.05.2024. 7. At this juncture, learned counsel has placed reliance upon various annexed documents, to substantiate the aforementioned contention that the petitioner has had her name as ‘Manashvi Pachar’ in all other documents. Moreover, an application has been filed before the concerned authorities to correct the petitioner’s name in the E-Pehchan Card. (Annexure-7). 8. Aggrieved of the afore-stated situation, the petitioner filed a representation at the ESIC, (Head-quarters) New Delhi Office, on 14.06.2024. However, the said representation had been rejected. In furtherance of the said representation the petitioner had also sent an E-mail to the Director General, ESIC on 23.06.2024. Howsoever, the petitioner received a revert stating ‘the request had already been rejected’. 9. In support of the foregoing contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in Charles K. Skaria & Ors. Vs. Dr. C. Mathew & Ors. (1980) 2 SCC 752 and Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman JEE, (2005) 9 SCC 779 . 10. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents has submitted that the petitioner had ample of opportunities and time to carry out requisite corrections prior to the cut-off date i.e. 30.05.2024. Nevertheless, the petitioner has failed to attain the available efficacious mode of correction. It is further submitted that the said admission notice dated 24.04.2024 categorically stated the requisite conditions and hence, it is the sanity of every individual who is filling the form for attaining the IP Certificate, to abide by the due process with utmost cautiousness and sincerity. 11. Nevertheless, the petitioner has failed to attain the available efficacious mode of correction. It is further submitted that the said admission notice dated 24.04.2024 categorically stated the requisite conditions and hence, it is the sanity of every individual who is filling the form for attaining the IP Certificate, to abide by the due process with utmost cautiousness and sincerity. 11. However, learned counsel has not refuted the factual narrative of the instant matter and has fairly conceded with the fact that the petitioner is a beneficiary under her mother’s E-Pehchan Card, bearing insurance No. 1511378227. 12. Heard and considered. 13. Upon an assiduous scanning of the record, considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the arguments averred by the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court at this juncture, deems it appropriate to jot down indubitable facts: 13.1 That the petitioner is a meritorious student, who had appeared in NEET (UG) Examination, 2024. Moreover, the afore-stated error is bonafide and an inadvertent mistake and due to a technical glitch the petitioner could not check /make the requisite corrections and the status of her application, prior to the cut-off date. 13.2 That in pursuant to the admission notice dated 24.04.2024, the petitioner had applied to attain her IP Certificate on 05.05.2024. 13.3 That the petitioner’s application form had been kept in limbo till 27.05.2024, thereafter, the online portal closed on 30.05.2024. 13.4 That aggrieved of the aforementioned situation the petitioner has submitted a representation followed by an e-mail to the ESIC Head-quarters office, Delhi and Director General, ESIC respectively. However, the said representations have been rejected. 13.5 That substantial proof is placed on record to corroborate the contentions averred by the learned counsel for the petitioner. More specifically the petitioners’ updated AADHAR Card, Secondary Mark-sheet, NEET (UG) Examination, 2024 admit card etc. wherein, the petitioners’ name is reflected as ‘MANASHVI PACHAR’ (Annexure No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). 13.6 That during the currency of the dispute in hand on 15.06.2024, the petitioner has already applied before the concerned authorities to correct and update her name in the E-Pehchan Card. However, the same is under consideration as on date (Annexure-7). 14. wherein, the petitioners’ name is reflected as ‘MANASHVI PACHAR’ (Annexure No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). 13.6 That during the currency of the dispute in hand on 15.06.2024, the petitioner has already applied before the concerned authorities to correct and update her name in the E-Pehchan Card. However, the same is under consideration as on date (Annexure-7). 14. Considering the foregoing facts and circumstances, the primary issue before this Court is that whether issuance of IP Certificate can be rejected on a solitary ground that the candidate has filled distinguishable credentials (in the matter in hand, the petitioner has not entered her full name), albeit the fact that the petitioner herein, is undisputedly a beneficiary under her mother’s E-Pehchan Card, bearing insurance No. 1511378227? 15. In this regard this Court deems it apposite to place reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in Dolly Chhanda (Supra). Explicating it further, it is a paramount principle that has also been upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments that the pre-requisite condition to attain admission in any institution is that the candidate is in due possession of all the documents qua the minimum eligibility criteria, as prescribed in the scheme of advertisement. Furnishing of documents qua which certain reservation is claimed is a subsidiary condition. Hence, the cut-off date and amendment policy qua the same is subject to liberal and beneficial interpretation. The relevant extract from the dictum enunciated in Dolly Chhanda (Supra) is reproduced herein-below: “The general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or mark-sheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement for benefit of reservation. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or mark-sheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement for benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature.” 16. In light of the above stated, this Court is inclined to allow the instant petition, for the reasons stated herein below: 16.1 It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is a child of an Insured Person and is therefore eligible to avail the said benefit under the ESI Act, 1948. As per the admission policy for under-graduate (MBBS/ BDS) admissions for academic year 2024-25 as expounded in the admission notice dated 24.04.2024, the petitioner duly fulfills the mandate as noted in Serial No. 9. For the sake of convenience, the said condition is reproduced herein-below: 9. ‘Ward of Insured Person’ will be children/ child of an Insured Person who are/ is eligible for benefit under the ESI Act as on the last date of submission of application form for NEET (UG) for the relevant year. 16.2 The instant issue is merely on account of a bonafide and inadvertent mistake of the petitioner. Moreover, the same has occurred due to lack of proper internet connectivity and technical glitch. 16.3 As on date no third party rights are created. 17. In summation of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, and taking note especial note of the fact that the petitioner is a meritorious student, and has strived hard to qualify the NEET (UG) Examination, and the said IP Certificate can facilitate her admission into a desired institution, of her choice and eligibility, this Court directs the respondents to promptly issue the IP Certificate to the petitioner. Needful to be done prior to the counseling of the said courses or within an upper limit of 15 days, from passing of this judgment, whichever is earlier. 18. As a sequel to the above, the instant petition is allowed. Needful to be done prior to the counseling of the said courses or within an upper limit of 15 days, from passing of this judgment, whichever is earlier. 18. As a sequel to the above, the instant petition is allowed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.