Join our WhatsApp Group
Breaking
Sunday, October 11, 2026 Jaipur Edition
Rajasthan High Court
High Courts

Missing Class XI Biology Marksheet Cannot Defeat Merit in NEET Seat Allotment: Rajasthan High Court

Published: · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court held that higher-ranked NEET-UG 2024 candidates could not be ousted from the Stray Vacancy Round merely because their Class XI marksheets did not show Biology, when their Class XII marksheets did (paras 13.6, 14.2). Document verification was held during the Deepawali holidays in a three-hour window, and the school certificates produced on 31.10.2024 were held to be in time (paras 13.3-13.4, 15). Treating merit as the exclusive criterion, the Court cancelled two lower-ranked candidates' allotments (paras 15-17).

Missing Class XI Biology Marksheet Cannot Defeat Merit in NEET Seat Allotment: Rajasthan High Court

Judgment Intelligence

Petition Allowed
Kanchan Kumawat v. Union of India & Ors.
2024:RJ-JP:46833
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17069/2024 (with S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 17208/2024, 17037/2024 and 17029/2024)
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision
14 November 2024
Bench
Justice Sameer Jain
Relevant Acts & Sections
Constitution of India — Articles 14 and 21; General Clauses Act, 1897 — Section 10; Minimum Requirements for Annual M.B.B.S. Admissions Regulations, 2020 (National Medical Commission)
Final Outcome

Petitions allowed. The authorities must consider the petitioners strictly on their NEET-UG 2024 merit and allot medical colleges accordingly, without delay; the allotments of respondents 5 and 6 were cancelled. The judgment applies to all connected petitions; no costs (paras 16-17). Special appeals, including D.B. SAW/689/2024, have been filed.

Key holdings

  1. Insisting on a Class XI marksheet showing Biology was unjustified when the Class XII marksheet already showed it (para 14.2).
  2. Verification fixed during public holidays, in a three-hour window, gave candidates no reasonable time (paras 13.3, 14.1, 15).
  3. Certificates produced on 31.10.2024 were held to be in time under Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (para 13.4).
  4. Following Asha, a cut-off cannot be a technical tool to deny admission to a blameless, diligent and meritorious candidate (para 14.4).
  5. The lower-ranked candidates’ allotments were cancelled and seats are to be allotted strictly by NEET merit (paras 16-17).

Brief Facts

The petitioners took NEET-UG 2024. A Stray Vacancy Round was notified on 23.10.2024, with document verification on 28.10.2024 from 9 a.m. to noon (paras 2, 13.2). They produced Class X and XII marksheets but were asked for an affidavit because their Class XI documents did not mention Biology; they had been promoted during the COVID-19 pandemic on a State format listing no subjects (paras 3-4, 13.7). The lead petitioner was on the revised merit list but was left out of the allotment list of 30.10.2024, while lower-ranked respondents 5 and 6 got colleges (paras 4, 13.6, 14). The authorities said a Class XI marksheet showing the relevant subjects was mandatory (para 8).

Court's Findings

The Court found that verification was scheduled in great haste during the Deepawali public and office holidays, leaving no reasonable time to obtain a certificate from a school (paras 13.3, 14.1). Applying the computation-of-time rule in Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, it held that the certificates produced on 31.10.2024 were in time, and that the petitioners had come to Court without delay (para 13.4). Their Class XII marksheets showed Biology, and the authorities failed to justify insisting on a Class XI marksheet saying the same (para 14.2). Earlier counselling rounds had allowed time to furnish documents; this round gave little or none (para 14.3). Following Asha, it held that where the candidate is not at fault and has acted promptly, a cut-off cannot be used as a technical tool to deny admission to a meritorious student (para 14.4). Relying on Pradeep Jain, Dolly Chhanda and S. Krishna Sradha, it held that merit must prevail over technicalities and that an infraction of the rule on submitting proof need not always end a candidature (paras 14.5-14.8). Ramkrishna Medical College and Premsukh were distinguished (paras 14.9-14.10).

Legal Principle

Merit is the governing rule in allotting medical seats. Where a candidate is not at fault, acts promptly and was given no reasonable time to produce a document, the absence of a Class XI marksheet naming Biology, when the Class XII marksheet shows it, cannot be used to oust her in favour of lower-ranked candidates (paras 14.2, 14.4, 15).

Precedents Relied Upon

  1. Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 5055 of 2012 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 7440 of 2012]
    Followed Discussed at ¶ 7, 14.4, 15

    Where no fault is attributable to a candidate who has pursued her remedies expeditiously, the cut-off date cannot be used as a technical instrument to deny admission to a meritorious student; the rule of merit admits no exception.

  2. Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1984) 3 SCC 654
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 14.5

    Merit alone must be the criterion for admission to MBBS courses.

  3. Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE (2005) 9 SCC 779
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 14.7

    Eligibility must exist by the date fixed, but there can be some relaxation in the submission of proof; every infraction of the rule on submitting proof need not result in rejection of candidature.

View all precedents (6)
  1. S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2020) 17 SCC 465
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 11, 14.8

    In rare cases where the candidate is not at fault, has acted expeditiously and the authorities are at fault, the court may direct admission and may cancel the admission of the candidate at the bottom of the merit list after hearing that candidate. Cited by the respondents and relied on by the Court.

  2. Ramkrishna Medical College Hospital & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. SLP (C) No. 11785/2024
    Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 11, 14.9

    Cited by the respondents; distinguished because it concerned the grant of a vacant seat and admission in a medical college, in the context of interim directions.

  3. Premsukh v. Union of India & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18396/2024 (Rajasthan High Court)
    Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 11, 14.10, 15

    Cited by the respondents; reliance on it was held misplaced because the petitioners there were only to be considered in subsequent counselling rounds, with no observation on the other issues (para 15 also takes note of its ratio).

NyayVidhan
Court Judgments · 3 min read
Decided: November 14, 2024 Justice Sameer Jain
PDF
WhatsApp Telegram X / Twitter LinkedIn

✕

Popular: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt