Mansi Chouhan vs Union Of India

Heard Mr. Tanmay Thomas, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Anmol Sharma, learned Central Government counsel, Mr. Vaibhav Diwan, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 3 as well as Ms. Juhi Pandey, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 4.

The petitioner participated in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (UG) – 2022 (for short, NEET) as an unreserved category candidate and obtained 111 marks. The case of the petitioner is that for getting a seat, the minimum cut-off marks for an unreserved category candidate is fixed at 117 and for the Other Backward Class (OBC) category candidate, it is 93. It is asserted that the petitioner belongs to OBC category. However, erroneously, she had tick-marked unreserved category while filling up the application form and this fact came to her knowledge only after the results of the examination were declared on 07.09.2022. After declaration of the result, she submitted a representation to the respondent No. 3 on 16.09.2022 for change of her category from unreserved to OBC.

It is pleaded in the writ petition that in the NEET (UG) – 2021, the petitioner had appeared as an OBC (non-creamy layer) category candidate.

Mr. Tanmay Thomas, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner submits that the cut-off marks for the OBC being 93, if the category of the petitioner is converted to OBC, she will be able to participate in the counselling process. It is submitted by him that when, admittedly, the petitioner belongs to OBC category, because of the inadvertent error committed by the petitioner, she may not be deprived of the opportunity of taking part in the counselling process and a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner as an OBC category candidate.

Mr. Vaibhav Diwan, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 3 submits that a public notice was issued on 24.05.2022 for correction in particulars of the Online Application Form of NEET between 24.05.2022 to 27.05.2022 upto 09:00 pm. In the said notice, it was indicated that as per Annexure-1, “Fields for Corrections” included ‘category’ or ‘caste’. It was also indicated in the public notice that after the notified period, no correction would be entertained under any circumstances. However, the petitioner did not avail the opportunity of correcting the mistake, if any. Mr. Diwan further submits that change of category, if permitted, will have a cascading effect and the result declared will be upset and further, many candidates who had already taken admission might be adversely affected. It is also submitted that two rounds of counselling have already taken place, and therefore, at this juncture, no orders are called for to treat the application of the petitioner as an OBC category candidate.

We find substance in the argument of Mr. Diwan. It may be that the petitioner belongs to OBC category. However, an aspect which cannot be ignored is that the results were declared long back on 07.09.2022. Any change in the status of the category would entail re-drawing the rankings, upsetting the ranking of many candidates who are not before this Court, thereby adversely affecting them. That apart, opportunity was also granted to rectify the defects, if any, in the application form submitted by the candidates. Such opportunity was also not availed of by the petitioner.

In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that no directions as prayed for is called for in this petition, and accordingly, the petition is dismissed.