The main legal point established in the judgment is that candidates must adhere to the prescribed procedure for challenging the answer key and that the decision of the experts in finalizing the result does not warrant a judicial review on merits.

ORDER

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner, vide the instant writ petition has prayed for the directions against the respondents to grant additional two marks to the petitioner for attempting Question ID No.1955 of UGC-NET Examination (December 2020-June 2021 Merged Cycle) or to direct the respondents to issue a revised result of the petitioner including the additional two marks towards Question ID No.1955.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the petitioner applied for UGC-NET Examination in December 2020- June 2021 cycle and choose NET subject as Urdu. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the Question ID No.1955 of UGC-NET Examination of Urdu subject was ambiguous, in as much as, it contained two correct answers.

3. In addition, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that not only two answers which were found to be correct by the respondents themselves, another answer i.e. option no.3 is also correct on the basis of the material produced by him.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner also submits that if Clause 4.5 (vi) of the Information Bulletin published by the respondents is perused, the same would indicate that the candidates are entitled for marks against the ambiguous question. He, therefore, states that undisputedly there are two answers which were found to be correct by respondent no.1-National Testing Agency (NTA) itself which inevitably leads to the conclusion that the question itself is ambiguous, and therefore, the petitioner should have been awarded marks for Question ID No.1955.

5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in provisional answer key, respondent no.1-NTA has published option no.1 to be the correct answer and at the later stage, in final answer key, respondent no.1- NTA has finalized option no.2 to be the correct answer, however, again respondent no.1-NTA switched over to option no.1 to be the correct answer. Moreover, later on, respondent no.1-NTA approved both option nos.1 and 2 to be the correct answers. This position is not disputed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, states that there was sufficient reason for the petitioner not to raise any objection with respect to the provisional answer key or the final answer key. According to him, the petitioner realized about the ambiguity of the answer pertaining to Question ID No. 1955, when this court has disposed of W.P.(C) No.7756/2022 in terms of order dated 22.07.2022.

7. He, therefore, submits that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner did not raise the objection and if the case of the petitioner falls within Clause 4.5, the petitioner is entitled for the relief of granting marks against Question ID No.1955.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner places reliance on the decision of this court in the case of Salil Maheshwari vs. The High Court of Delhi and Anr., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4563, decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Sakti Rupa Chakraborty vs. University of Calcutta and Ors., 1992 SCC OnLine Cal 131 and the decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Anjali Goswami and Ors. vs. Registrar General, Delhi High Court, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6829.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1- NTA raises a strong objection with respect to maintainability of the instant writ petition. Learned counsel for respondent no.1-NTA submits that the petitioner did not raise any objection when the provisional answer key was published.

10. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1-NTA, the candidates were made aware in advance that prior to declaration of result, respondent no.1-NTA would publish provisional answer key and the candidates will be given an opportunity to raise challenge against the provisional answer key. The cha