Back
SANJEEV NARULA
Shreya Yadav – Appellant
Versus
National Testing Agency – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
1. On the basis of a mere apprehension, Petitioners have approached this Court for directions that in their opinion would pre-empt tampering of Optical Mark Recognition [“OMR”] answer sheets in the forthcoming National Eligibility cum Entrance Examination-2022 (Undergraduate) [“NEET”]. The reliefs sought are as follows:
(ii) Direct the filing of the image of NEET-2022 OMR answer sheet of Petitioner in present proceedings through the counsel for respondents, within a day of obtaining such image.”
2. As the grounds urged and reliefs sought are identical, a common order is being passed in these two petitions.
Brief Facts:
3. Ms. Shreya Yadav [the sole Petitioner in W.P.(C) 9026/2022], and Ms. Disha Joshi [the sole Petitioner in W.P.(C) 9165/2022] have appeared in previous years’ NEET examinations, but we
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.
Allegations of examination tampering must be substantiated with credible evidence to establish a legal cause of action for relief.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that allegations of forgery/fabrications cannot be inferred without affording an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, and relief sought can....
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 submission of forged documents in examination processes can lead to legal action against the candidate, and petitions based on such submissions may be dismissed.
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.
Disputed questions of fact and elaborate evidence required for adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution.
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
