[2025:RJ-JP:29962] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11920/2025 Ms Yashita Mahajan (Minor) D/o Shri Siddharth Mahajan, Aged About 17 Years, Presently Resident Of C-Ii/41, Tilak Lane, New Delhi-110001, Through Father And Natural Guardian Shri Siddharth Mahajan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Director, Department Of Medical Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Chairman, Neet Ug Medical And Dental Admission / Counseling Board, Sms Medical College, Jln Marg, Jaipur- 302004. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yash Joshi for Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 05/08/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter pertains to denial of petitioner’s candidature for State counselling, which is scheduled from 05.08.2025 to 07.08.2025 for seat in Medical College in the State of Rajasthan, pursuant to notification dated 26.07.2025 for NEET-UG (Medical) Dental Counselling-2025. It is further submitted that as per (Annexure- 6), it is categorically reflected that the application form of the petitioner, which was desired as per the relevant provisions, was [2025:RJ-JP:29962] (2 of 4) [CW-11920/2025] successfully registered and the Registration ID RM5608 was allotted to the petitioner withal, the fee amount of Rs. 2,500/- was also accepted, howsoever, on account of technical glitch on the part of the respondents or for the reasons beyond the petitioner’s control in spite of all bonafides, the claim of the petitioner was not considered and because of which she is ousted from the counselling. 2. In this regard, reliance is place upon the ratio encapsulated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11261/2025 titled as Praveen Kumar vs. Chairman, NEET PG Admission/Counselling Board decided vide judgment dated 23.07.2025. In light of the same, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that when 3rd party rights are not created, the technical glitch is beyond control of the petitioner and merit is being effected, the candidature of the petitioner should be considered and manual permission should be granted. 3. As counsel for the respondents have marked presence, notices need not be issued. Service is treated to be complete. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Joshi has submitted that the respondents have created a software and online mode of application submission for convenience of students/candidates. It is also submitted that State does not draw any benefit by rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. It is also only an exceptional case however, there are no cogent reasons that as to why out of lacs of candidates the case of the petitioner is to be treated as exception. It is submitted that upon such short notices, it will be inappropriate to state any justification vis-a-vis the consideration of claim qua the State. It is an admitted fact that as on date 3rd [2025:RJ-JP:29962] (3 of 4) [CW-11920/2025] party rights are not created, however entertaining the present plea shall open a Pandoras’ box. 5. Having heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, upon a perusal of the material available on record and maintaining judicial parity as that with Praveen Kumar (supra), this Court is of a view that there was a technical glitch during submission of online application of the petitioner; that the fee was duly accepted by the respondents; that the registration of the petitioner was duly acknowledged and a Registration ID was also allotted in the petitioner’s name; that as on date 3rd party rights are not created, therefore, this Court permits the petitioner for the counselling, by way of offline/manual mode application submission, forthwith. The relevant extract from Praveen Kumar (supra) is reproduced herein below: “5. Having heard the contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties, taking note of the material available on record; that the delay so caused is beyond control of the petitioner; that no third party rights are created as on date; that judicial parity as that with the ratio encapsulated in Dr. Pritam Yadav (Supra) is to be maintained, this Court invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, directs the respondents to accept the application of the petitioner-candidate via offline mode/manually, along with requisite fee and other formalities from the petitioner, if filed within a period of twenty four hours from the date of passing of this order. 6. The present petition is accordingly, allowed. However, it is made clear that the present order will not be treated as a precedent, as it is passed under special circumstances.” 6. It is made clear that in the matters of students, who have limited means of technical tools, have burnt the mid night oil for [2025:RJ-JP:29962] (4 of 4) [CW-11920/2025] their selection and stood high in merit, there is a distinct between substantial and procedural breach, if the substantial condition of the merit is complied with, one has to be very liberal if there is a procedural breach beyond control of the petitioner more so when 3rd party rights are not created. 7. In view of the aforementioned the present petition is allowed. Directions passed in Praveen Kumar (supra) are made squarely applicable herein. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. 8. Concerned authorities are directed to act accordingly, without further ado. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK/s-155