Back
MINI PUSHKARNA
Vedanshi Pathak Through Guardian Piyush Kumar Pathak – Appellant
Versus
National Testing Agency – Respondent
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/ Hybrid Hearing]
Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking directions against the respondents to provide her an opportunity to appear in the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) Advanced Examination, that was scheduled to be held on 28.08.2022.
2. It is averred in the present petition that the petitioner has been wrongly denied the opportunity to register and appear in the JEE Advanced 2022, mainly because of the fact that there was duplication in the names of the candidates shortlisted by the respondent No. 1.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that she appeared in the JEE mains examination and scored 88.2866394 percentile against the cut of percentile of 88.4121383 to register for JEE Advanced Examination. The petitioner missed the cut off percentile by only 0.126 percentile due to duplicity of Common Rank List (CRL).
4. When the present matter was listed for hearing on 26.08.2022, this Court by its detailed judgment had dismissed the prayer of the petitioner for interim relief, wherein she had prayed for direction to the respondents to allow her to register and appear in the JEE Advanced 2022, which
The court emphasized the importance of preventing duplication in candidate names for competitive examinations and recognized the need for thorough investigation and measures to avoid such errors in t....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of digital evidence and the burden of proof in establishing the authenticity of documents in legal proceedings.
Policy decisions regarding exam eligibility cannot be arbitrarily altered and must adhere to established criteria, even in unprecedented circumstances like a pandemic.
The legal principle established is that the failure to comply with the prescribed procedures for category selection and the absence of demonstrated bona fides can lead to the denial of requests for c....
Petitioner's right to alter his application category after failing to adhere to established procedures was denied, emphasizing strict adherence to process in examination applications.
Disputed questions of fact and elaborate evidence required for adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Limited interference with policy decisions and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on examinations.
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
