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.

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:

(i) Direct the Respondent 1, 2 & 3 to appropriately secure the image of the OMR answer sheet of Petitioner at Petitioner’s exam centre, immediately after completion of the NEET – 2022 examination by Petitioner with further direction to transmit the image of the OMR answer sheet to the mobile number (XXXXXXXXX) of parents of Petitioner in presence of Petitioner,

(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 were unable to get admission on the basis of their respective scores.

4. The case canvassed by Mr. Ravi Kumar, counsel for Petitioners, is that the Petitioners have been wrongly shown to have secured extremely low marks in the NEET-2020 exam, despite having performed at par with the best candidates across the country in the mock examinations. He alleges that the National Testing Agency (“NTA”) [Respondent No. 1 in both the matters], which conducts the NEET examination, has forged and fabricated OMR sheets of the Petitioners in the past, and therefore in the forthcoming NEET-2022, directions should be issued to rule out any possibility of tampering with the OMR sheets. This, he submits. can be easily accomplished by way of the directions sought in the petitions. He submits that such directions would cause no prejudice to the Respondents and only aid the Petitioners in proving their case, which has been set forth in writ petitions pertaining to NEET examination conducted in the previous years, which are pending disposal. Mr. Kumar also argues that Petitioners’ apprehension is founded on their unfortunate past experience and facts that are in the public domain. He emphasises that it is not uncommon that answer sheets of meritorious students are swapped with other students, and places reliance upon the orders passed in the above-stated writ petitions filed by Petitioners, which are pending disposal. Mr. Kumar fervently argues that Petitioners have no faith in the NTA, and thus protective directions are extremely necessary to secure the image of their respective OMR answer sheets in the forthcoming NEET-2022 examination.

5. He further relies on an order dated 09th December, 2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, [In W.P No. 15959/2020 and WMP No. 19859/2020 titled K. S. Manoj v. UOI and Ors.] wherein the Court had made observations raising concerns regarding the issue of manipulation of OMR sheets, which is also being urged before this Court. Thereafter, vide judgment dated 01st March 2021,[ Id.] the Court therein had ordered an investigation by the CB-CID and the DIG, CB-CID into the allegations made therein, and the candidate was permitted to sit for counselling, subject to the outcome of the investigation.

6. It is also pointed out that tampering/ swapping of OMR sheets also occurred in previous years’ NEET examinations, and Petitioners have impugned the same in writ petitions bearing W.P.(C.) 10319/2020 [wherein Shreya Yadav and Disha Joshi are Petitioners No. 13 and 5 respectively out of 14 Petitioners],[ Seeking, inter alia, quashing of notices dated 27.09.2020 and 05.10.2020 issued by NTA providing for procedure to challenge the OMR sheet; direction to R-1 to refund amount of 51,000/-, direct R-3 to allow Petitioner to register for couns