Misthi Sehgal vs Union Of India And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-

a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to reschedule the CUET (UG) 2025 English language examination of the petitioner and permit the petitioner to appear in the CUET (UG) 2025 English language examination for academic session 2025-26.

b) Issue any suitable order or direction of any nature which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper; and

c) Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is the case of the petitioner that she appeared in Class XII examination in the year 2025 conducted by the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations, New Delhi. She passed the examination. She filled the form for Common University Entrance Test (CUET) (UG) 2025 for admission to undergraduate programmes in Central Universities/participating universities (State/Deemed/Private) across the country for the Academic Session 2025-26. Admit card was issued to her. The examination was scheduled on 19.05.2025 in the second shift in a centre at Dehradun. According to the petitioner, the examination centre was 7.9 Kms away from her place of residence. The petitioner left for examination on time, but she reached the examination centre 2-3 minutes after the reporting time, due to unforeseen traffic condition. As she was late, she was denied entry. Now, the petitioner seeks directions that the respondents may be directed to reschedule the CUET (UG) 2025 English language examination of the petitioner and permit her to appear in the examination.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a very meritorious student; she could not reach the examination centre on time due to the reasons, which were beyond her control; the respondents are still conducting examination at various other centres. Therefore, the respondents may be directed to permit the petitioner to take the examination of English language.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents may accommodate the petitioner to appear in the examination, which may be held at some other centre in some future time.

In the matter of such examination, the intervention of Court is not expected of. In the matter like instant one, a candidate has to report on time for examination. There are Rules and Regulations, which govern such examination. If intervention of Court is made in such matters, it may create confusion and uncertainity with regard to such examination. Therefore, this Court is of the view that in the instant petition, no intervention of the Court is required.

It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no.3/National Testing Agency may accommodate the petitioner at some other centre for permitting her to take examination. For that matter, the petitioner is free to approach the respondent no.3/National Testing Agency seeking redressal of her grievance. This Court has no doubt that if such a representation is made by the petitioner, it may be considered, in accordance with law.

With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of.