Back
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
Selishia Mohandas – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORDER
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner, vide the instant writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs:
"a) issue writ/writs including a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent National Testing Agency to produce the original Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) along with the Answer Key Code E3 the Petitioner herein before this Honourable court and consequently recomputed the marks and publish fresh result with fresh rank merit list for National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (Undergraduate)-2023;
b) Direct the 1st and 2nd Respondents to allot one MBBS Seat for the academic Year of NEET (UG)-2023 in any Government Medical College Situated in Kerala or Andhra Pradesh."
2. The case of the petitioner is that she appeared in NEET (UG)-2023 examination conducted by respondent no.2-National Testing Agency (hereinafter referred to as 'NTA'). According to her, on 04.06.2023 the respondent no.2-NTA declared the Provisional Answer Key of NEET (UG)- 2023 examination and also directed that the candidates, who have objections to the Answer Key or Recorded Responses, may challenge the same as per the procedure. The Provisional Answer Key was uploaded on the of
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.
Allegations of examination tampering must be substantiated with credible evidence to establish a legal cause of action for relief.
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.
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....
The court emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence to substantiate claims of manipulation in examination records and upheld the integrity of the examination authority.
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.
The court affirmed that the integrity of official examination records is paramount, and claims based on discrepancies without credible evidence are insufficient to challenge the results.
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
