The power of writ courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has to be exercised sparingly in academic matters, limited to cases where actions borne out of malafide or arbitrariness etc. are challenged.

JUDGMENT

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for directions to the respondents to conduct a re- test of the Common University Entrance Test (UG)-2023 [hereinafter CUET (UG)-2023] for the petitioner on account for her inability to appear for the exam for Psychology subject that was conducted on 15.06.2023.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner completed her Class 12th examinations in Humanities stream in 2023 and thereafter, being desirous of doing graduation in Psychology subject, filled up the form for CUET (UG)-2023. It is pointed out that as per the public notice dated 30.04.2023, the National Testing Agency (hereinafter NTA), which conducts the examination in question, specifically announced that the release of admit cards for the examination would take place three days before the actual date of examination.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that in April, 2023, as per the information published by respondent No.2-NTA, it was stated that the dates of examination would be between 21.05.2023 to 31.05.2023 and the dates for publication of result would be between 01.06.2023 to 07.06.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that relying upon the information which was published by respondent No.2- NTA, the petitioner had planned to go abroad for vacation alongwith her parents between 08.06.2023 to 17.06.2023. The petitioner accordingly went to Turkey between those dates.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in defiance of the public notice dated 30.04.2023, respondent No.2-NTA made the admit cards available to the petitioner through e-mail only on 14.06.2023 i.e. one date before the scheduled date of examination which was on 15.06.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in no case could the petitioner have appeared on 15.06.2023 as she was in Turkey on 14.06.2023, the date on which she received the admit card.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 14.06.2023, the petitioner immediately responded to the official e-mail of respondent No.2- NTA stating therein the practical difficulty of her appearance in the said examination. The petitioner thereafter sent as many as nine e- mails/communications on different dates i.e. on 15.06.2023, 16.06.2023 and 19.06.2023, requesting respondent No.2-NTA to allow her to appear for the examination on the allotted buffer dates, which were scheduled for 21.06.2023, 22.06.2023 and 23.06.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all those e-mails/communications were also not acted upon by the respondents and no response was received by the petitioner who has, consequentially been deprived of an opportunity to appear in the said examination arbitrarily.

6. Respondent No.2-NTA has filed the counter affidavit and they have pointed out that in terms of public notice dated 13.06.2023, it was informed to all concerned that the admit cards alongwith City Intimation Slip for CUET (UG)-2023 are being released for about 23896 candidates for the examinations scheduled on 15.06.2023, 16.06.2023 and 17.06.2023.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2-NTA, therefore, submits that on 13.06.2023 itself the admit cards were made available on the official website of the NTA and in addition, on 14.06.2023, e-mails were sent to the concerned candidates informing them about the availability of the admit cards for downloading. It is submitted that the same cannot be understood to mean that there was disobedience or non-adherence to the instructions earlier issued by the NTA. As per respondent No. 2-NTA, once the public notice was issued on 13.06.2023, it was incumbent upon all candidates to download their admit cards and to plan for their appearance in the examinations on the respective dates.

8. With respect to the buffer dates, learned counsel for respondent No.2