Back
A. S. CHANDURKAR, ANIL L. PANSARE
Miss Sayee – Appellant
Versus
Minister Of Education And Minister Of Health And Family Welfare – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Anil L. Pansare, J. - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has put forth following substantive prayer:
''(i) Order respondents to make available correct score card showing 514 marks out of 720 in substitution to incorrect score card for NEET (UG) exam. 2022 showing 166 marks by respondent no.2 referred vide Annexure P-2.''
3. The petitioner appeared in the NEET (UG) Examination 2022 from Indo Public School, Mardi Road, Amravati Centre on 17.07.2022. According to the petitioner, the answer key was made available by the respondent no.3 on website on 31.08.2022. The petitioner made assessment of her own and found that she has correctly answered 133 questions and incorrectly answered 18 questions and that her expected score is 514 marks. Thereafter, result came to be notified on 07.09.2022 by the respondent no.3. The petitioner was allotted 166 marks as against her expectation of 514 marks. She, therefore, sought clarification by pointing out the alleged error committed by the respondent no.3. The clarification was sought on e-mail. According to the petitioner, the reply sent along with answer sheet
The court's decision emphasized the need for the petitioner to seek redressal through the appropriate forum, declining to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Presumption in favor of the official record and the consequences of deliberate tampering with official documents.
The Court held that the original OMR sheet produced by the 2nd respondent was the only one mark sheet of the petitioner and there was no discrepancy in the documents produced by the respondents.
The court affirmed that adherence to examination rules and timely objections are essential for maintaining the integrity of the evaluation process.
Adherence to examination instructions is mandatory; deviations such as double bubbling justify evaluation outcomes, and courts should not interfere in such cases.
Examination authorities must ensure the integrity of examination materials; errors in handling can lead to unjust penalties for candidates.
Allegations of examination tampering must be substantiated with credible evidence to establish a legal cause of action for relief.
The unsubstantiated nature of beliefs and lack of evidence are insufficient to establish a valid cause of action in seeking reliefs through a writ petition.
The court emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence to substantiate claims of manipulation in examination records and upheld the integrity of the examination authority.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
