SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Bom) 1591

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD BENCH
S.V. GANGAPURWALA, MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.
Ankita Abhang Indrale and Another - Appellants
Versus
Union of India and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 6740 of 2019, 6789 of 2019, 6798 of 2019, 6986 of 2019, 7221 of 2019
Decided On : 11-10-2019

Advocates Appeared:
A.S. Golegaonkar, Adv., S.B. Deshpande, Adv., V.D. Salunke, Adv., P.S. Pawar, Adv., Santosh S. Jadhavar, Adv., Nandkumar Y. Kingaonkar, Adv.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Case of Disputes Pertaining to Conduct of Examination is Illegal - Petitioners challenge clause No. 6 of NEET - 2019 brochure and also seeking declaration that answers given by them to questions as contended by them in petitions are correct - Petitioners also assail Clauses 1(c), 2(c) & (d) and 4(i) and (ii) of Chapter 7 of Information Bulletin for NEET-UG2019 as violative of principles of natural justice - Contention of petitioners is that, answers to the various questions that petitioners had attempted and as have been detailed in memo of writ petitions are correct and the answers in answer key are erroneous - They should be given the marks for same - Learned counsel to buttress their submissions place reliance on the text book - They also rely on opinion of experts, who have also confirmed that answers as given by petitioners are correct and the answers in the answer key are wrong - Learned counsel submits that, Clause No. 6 of NEET-UG-2019 brochure restricting the jurisdiction to Delhi in case of disputes pertaining to conduct of examination is illegal - Jurisdiction cannot be restricted to one Court - Held, Sympathy or compassion does not play any role in matter of directing or not directing reevaluation of an answer sheet - If an error is committed by the examination authority, complete body of candidates suffers - Entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer - All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible - We do not find that brochure condition in Chapter 7 suffers from any violation of principles of natural justice or the same are ultra vires - Magnitude of the answer sheets is very large - Results have to be declared timely. It cannot be prolonged and it is not expected that each and every candidate would be communicated personally about the result of his objection. The candidate gets the knowledge about his objection when the final answer key is published. This Court cannot discard opinion of experts in academic matters - Petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. Gangapurwala, J.

The petitioners challenge clause No. 6 of NEET - 2019 brochure and also seeking declaration that answers given by them to the questions as contended by them in the petitions are correct. The petitioners also assail Clauses 1(c), 2(c) & (d) and 4(i) and (ii) of Chapter 7 of Information Bulletin for NEET-UG2019 as violative of principles of natural justice.

2. Mr. Golegaonkar, the learned advocate for petitioners led the arguments. Mr. Salunke, Mr. Jadhavar holding for Mr. Kingaonkar and Mr. Pawar, the learned counsel for respective petitioners adopted arguments of Mr. Golegaonkar and made further submissions.

3. The contention of petitioners is that, answers to the various questions that the petitioners had attempted and as have been detailed in the memo of writ petitions are correct and the answers in the answer key are erroneous. They should be given the marks for the same. The learned counsel to buttress their submissions place reliance on the text book. They also rely on opinion of experts, who have also confirmed that answers as given by petitioners are correct and the answers in the answer key are wrong. The learned counsel submit that, Clause No. 6 of the NEET-UG-2019 brochure restricting the jurisdiction to Delhi in case of disputes pertaining to the conduct of examination is illegal. The jurisdiction cannot be restricted to one Court. According to learned counsel, the Clauses 1(c), 2(c) & (d) and 4(i) and (ii) of Chapter 7 of Information Bulletin for NEET-UG-2019 are violative of principles of natural justice. On one hand the National Testing Agency (NTA) is giving opportunity to make representation and challenge the answer key, but in Clause 2-B no individual candidate is to be informed about acceptance and non-acceptance of his challenge. By this procedure the doubt is created. The said procedure is not fair. No verification through the experts by NTA has been done and there are no revised marks given, nor the answer key is revised. The Clauses 1(c), 2(c) & (d) and 4(i) and (ii) of Chapter 7 of Information Bulletin for NEET-UG-2019 give unlimited powers in the matter of rechecking/re-evaluation of answer sheet, that adversely affects the result and rank in the end marking.

4. Mr. Deshpande, the learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondents submits that, the answer keys of all the questions of NEET-UG-2019 examination conducted on 05.05.2019 were verified by the subject experts between 22nd and 26th May, 2019. The same were uploaded on official website. The candidates were informed through a public notice dated 29.05.2019 issued on the said examination portal, to challenge answer given in the key answer of any question within the said period.

5. The learned A. S. G. further submits that, 40510 challenges were received from the candidates. The challenges included the challenge of questions and answers raised by the petitioners also. The said challenges were placed before the Committee of respective subject experts, who are professors from IITs/reputed universities for verification. The subject experts went through the challenge/objection including that of the petitioners and considered each and every aspect of the challenge from 29.05.2019 to 03.06.2019 and submitted the report. The report of the subject experts on the answer key was placed before the result committee of NTA comprising of representatives of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Director General of Health Services, Medical Council of India, etc. in its meeting held on 03.06.2019 and thereafter answer key were treated as final and results were declared on 05.06.2019. The respondents have placed on record the evaluation of the answers by the experts to the questions and answers attended by the petitioners. The learned A. S. G. further submits that, in academic matters, this Court would not exercise its power of judicial review. The learned A. S. G. relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Ran Vijay Singh and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top