$~158 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010420742026 + W.P.(C) 12985/2026 CHAKARALA LIKHITH REDDY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Chirayu Jain, Ms. Onaizha Habeeb, Advs versus NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION IN MEDICAL SCIENCES .....Respondent Through: Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Adv. Mr. Mrinal Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Zillur Rahman, Adv. for NBEMS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 07.09.2026 CM APPL. 60322/2026 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is allowed. W.P.(C) 12985/2026 1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:- “A. Issue a writ of mandamus/orders/directions directing the Respondent to carry out the rectification in the marks entered by the Petitioner in his application form and allow the Petitioner to participate in the admission process thereafter. B. Issue a writ of mandamus/orders/directions having the effect This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/09/2026 at 11:46:36 of prohibiting the Respondent from using the error committed in the application form, that is, the inadvertently entered aggregate percentage, as a ground to disqualify the Petitioner from the admission process for NEET PG 2026 examination. ...” 2. For the reasons stated in the petition, issue notice. 3. The petitioner is a qualified doctor having secured an All India Rank of 185 in NEET-UG examination and had pursued his MBBS from the Christian Medical College, Vellore. Thereafter, he duly completed his mandatory bond period of two years and then applied for NEET-PG 2026 examination, wherein while filing up the application form for NEET-PG 2026, the petitioner committed errors in entering his aggregate marks obtained in undergraduate studies. 4. The petitioner calculated subject wise percentages and then has written the average percentage marks as the marks obtained. It was later realised that the petitioner was required to add all the subject wise marks obtained and then calculate the aggregate percentage by dividing the marks obtained against the total maximum marks. 5. As a result of this, the petitioner for the second year entered 79.75% in his application form wherein it ought to have been 80.36% and in the final year result, the petitioner entered 72.33% wherein the same ought to have been 71.69%. 6. As a result of these mistakes, the total aggregate marks of the petitioner were entered as 76.66% but the same should have been 75.51%. The petitioner raised his grievance and sought rectification on 31.07.2026 of the same beyond the edit window (closed on 28.07.2026) and thereafter again This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/09/2026 at 11:46:36 made a representation on 20.08.2026. 7. The rectification sought was not permitted as the window was already closed. Hence, the present petition has been preferred. 8. Mr. Noor, learned standing counsel for the respondent, states that there are numerous clauses in the information bulletin which are of relevance and need to be seen namely, Clause Nos. 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 8.15, 8.16, 8.17, 8.25, and 8.29, which were there to caution the candidates about filing the application form correctly and enter the correct details. Thus, the respondent could not consider any request for any alteration post-closure of the edit window which is 28.07.2026. Hence, he states that appropriate penalty should be imposed on petitioner. 9. I am of the view that undoubtedly the petitioner should have been more careful especially when the situation is such that as for each marks there are hundreds of doctors whose careers are at stake, but the petitioner has only made a mistake of bona fide nature. 10. Also, I cannot be oblivious to the fact that the petitioner immediately wrote an email after the closure of the edit window on 31.07.2026. Thus, the petitioner was prompt in realising his mistake and in seeking rectification of the same. 11. If the present petition is not allowed, I will be permitting the petitioner to participate in the counselling process with higher marks which will also affect the candidature of other students and cannot be permitted by this Court. 12. I am also conscious of the fact that the results are only being collated and have yet not been declared, hence no prejudice will caused to any of the candidates in allowing the present petition. 13. Additionally, on similar facts, the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat has This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/09/2026 at 11:46:36 already taken a considered view in its judgment dated 20.11.2025 in the case of Suthar Raghav Jagadishkumar V. Director, Admission Committee For Professional Postgraduate And Postgraduate Medical Edu. Courses &Anr., 2025:GUJHC:66641. 14. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am inclined to allow the petition. 15. Accordingly, the respondent shall make the necessary corrections and consider the corrected aggregate result as 75.51% of the petitioner while declaring the final results. 16. The error of the petitioner is no doubt serious but of a bona fide nature and a meritorious student cannot be made to suffer because of an inadvertent mistake directly striking a blow at his right to pursue higher education. 17. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms with a note of caution to the petitioner to be careful in future. JASMEET SINGH, J SEPTEMBER 7, 2026/NR This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/09/2026 at 11:46:36