'Dreams' Need Not Suffer For Procedure: Rajasthan High Court Slams ₹5 Lakh Forfeiture Of NEET Candidate Over A Day's Delay In Depositing Fee

Granting relief to a successful NEET candidate whose candidature was considered ineligible as he was late by 1 day in depositing fee, Rajasthan High Court slammed the forfeiture of Rs 5 Lakh security deposit by the Counselling Board terming it "unjust enrichment". The bench of Justice Sameer Jain opined that merely due to procedural irregularities or delays which could be condoned, the dreams of the petitioner need not be halted. It thus allowed the petitioner to participate in the third round of counselling."Upon due consideration, this Court holds that the retention and forfeiture of the petitioner's security deposit by the Counseling Board constitutes a classic instance of unjust enrichment…in the tussle between merits and money, future of bonafide aspirants need not to suffer. Moreover, it is duty of judicial bodies to safeguard the budding aspirations, dreams and motivation of young minds, who burn the mid night oil to reach at the places like good medical institutes, as in the matter in hand.”The petitioner had cleared NEET post which he had deposited Rs. 5 lakhs as security. He was allotted a private college in the second round of counselling after which he had to deposit Rs. 18.90 lakhs. Petitioner was a fatherless child, hailing from a humble background who was dependent upon his relatives, especially great grandmother, for fees. However, just one day before the deadline, his great grandmother expired, and preceding two days were public holidays. In this background, the petitioner got delayed by one day in depositing the fee. However, the same was not accepted by the board, who vacated the seat allotted to the petitioner, and also forfeited the security deposit. It was the case of the respondents that their conduct was as per the information booklet that had universal application, and giving excuse to the petitioner or like persons could vitiate the entire process. After hearing the contentions, the Court firstly held that considering the short span provided by the respondents to deposit the fees, as well as the peculiar situation faced by the petitioner, reflected the latter's bonafides. However, the Court also held that even otherwise, the board had no locus to forfeit the fees since they were unable to clarify as to how the forfeited amount could be kept under any account and used. The Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. & Ors. v Union of India & Ors. which dealt with the doctrine of unjust enrichment.“the present case is a classic illustrative of the fact that the medial aspirants, on being selected after due selection process, are required to deposit hefty fee in advance. Private medical colleges and the Counseling Board i.e. Nodal Agencies impose a condition for deposition of money/fee in a short span of time…Considering the scheme of medical institutions, role of NMC and the State, this Court is shocked and surprised that hefty fee in lacs are extracted from the students from humble backgrounds; nevertheless, such students/aspirants are unable to cop up or honour the same due to short window span.”The Court also observed that despite being a welfare state and guardian of its citizens, the State was unfortunately portraying itself as a compulsive litigant by insisting upon fee deposit within unreasonably short span on time. Further, the Court expressed its concern that neither the Finance Department, office of the Controller and Auditor General, nor any supervising agency had examined the issue wherein the security deposit was forfeited without justification. Opining the situation to be an unambiguous example of unjust enrichment, the Court highlighted that the respondents had failed to demonstrate any tangible loss that it might face, if the present petition was allowed. In this light, the petition was allowed, permitting the petitioner to participate in the third round of counselling, and adjustment of his security deposit towards the fees of allotted college. The Court clarified the decision being peculiar to this case, and not to be seen as a precedent. The registrar was directed to forward the copy to National Medical Commission; the Ministry of health and family welfare; and the Chief Secretary of the State. Title: Narendra Mahal v State of Rajasthan & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 346Click Here To Read/Download Order

'Dreams' Need Not Suffer For Procedure: Rajasthan High Court Slams ₹5 Lakh Forfeiture Of NEET Candidate Over A Day's Delay In Depositing Fee

Nupur Agrawal

Tags