Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 768 (TS)

Aayushi v. Union of India

2025-06-09

RENUKA YAR, SUJOY PAUL

body2025
OR DER : Sujoy Paul, J. Ms.NSV Janaki, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.N.V.R. Rajya Lakshmi, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for the respondents. 2. Heard on admission and interim relief. 3. The petitioner is claiming herself to be the resident of Telangana and urged that because of typographical mistake in the application form, she mentioned her State of Eligibility as “Uttar Pradesh” in place of “Telangana”. The singular prayer in this petition is to direct the respondents to correct the State of eligibility as “Telangana” for all purposes in NEET UG 2025 Examination. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the order passed by Division Bench of this Court in WP(SR) No.18076 of 2019 (Ex.P.15) submits that this Court in similar circumstances issued necessary directions. However, in the instant case, vide impugned communication dated 27.05.2025, the respondents have already rejected the representation. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Public Notice (Ex.P.13) contains a clear stipulation that “the window for corrections shall be available till 11.03.2025. (Upto 11.50 P.M.). After this deadline, no further corrections will be permitted under any circumstances.” It is urged that the software does not permit any reopening or correction after the cut- off date. If at this juncture, any such correction is ordered, it will adversely impact lakhs of candidates, who have participated in the examination. 6. In the rejoinder submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on INFORMATION BULLETIN NEET (UG)-2025 to show that declaration of result on the National Testing Agency Website will be available by 14.06.2025 (Tentative). Thus, at this stage, if correction is ordered, no prejudice will be caused to the other side. 7. Heard at length on admission. 8. Admittedly, as per Public Notice dated 06.03.2025, corrections could have been carried out till 11.03.2025 upto 11.50 PM. The Public Notice in no uncertain terms makes it clear that no further corrections will be permitted under any circumstances. 9. It is a matter of common knowledge in the present examination, lakhs of students are participating. The candidate who is preferring application must be vigilant and cross check the information furnished by him/her. The first representation seeking correction was preferred by the petitioner only on 27.05.2025. Thus, the petitioner has not acted with due diligence. 9. It is a matter of common knowledge in the present examination, lakhs of students are participating. The candidate who is preferring application must be vigilant and cross check the information furnished by him/her. The first representation seeking correction was preferred by the petitioner only on 27.05.2025. Thus, the petitioner has not acted with due diligence. We find no reason to doubt the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that in the software, there exists no mechanism to reopen and correct the entries already made till 11.03.2025. If interference is made on mere asking for a candidate who did not act with care and caution, the examination agency will be put to inconvenience and impossibility of correction in electronic form at this stage cannot be directed by passing a judicial order. 10. So far as order of this Court in WP(SR) No.19076 of 2019 is concerned on which heavy reliance is placed by learned counsel for the petitioner, suffice it to say that this Court has not laid down any principle of law in the said case. This Court merely directed the petitioner therein to prefer a representation seeking correction and in turn, the respondents therein were directed to decide the same. Thus, the said order is of no assistance to the petitioner. The rejection order is based on the stipulation contained in the main notice regarding “Corrections” upto a particular date and time. We find no arbitrariness or illegality in the rejection which warrants our interference. Thus, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. Admission is declined. 11. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.