IMPORTANT POINT
Standardized computerized evaluation process and unambiguous instructions for marking responses in UGC-NET examination.

JUDGMENT

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.

1. The present petition has been filed against the actions of the University Grants Commission (hereinafter `UGC.) i.e., respondent no.1 and Central Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter `CBSE.) i.e., respondent no.2, in rejecting the representations of the petitioner to modify the result of the UGC-NET and JRF Examination' November 2017.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the instant writ petition would indicate that the process for online application for UGC-NET Examination November 2017 had commenced on 11.08.2017. The petitioner had appeared for the examination on 5.11.2017, for the post of Assistant Professor and Junior Research Fellowship (JRF). Thereafter, on 02.01.2018, the result was declared which reflected that the petitioner had secured 56.57 percent in total and had qualified for the post of Assistant Professor. However, she had failed to qualify for the post of Junior Research Fellowship and Assistant Professor since the declared cutoff for the same was set at 57.14 percent. She was short of less than one percent from the requisite cutoff.

3. The petitioner, thereafter, on 08.01.2018, made an application to respondent no.1 for providing the photocopy of OMR sheet and calculation sheet alongwith the answer key of paper 1, 2 and 3 of the said examination. On perusal of such documents, she found that no marks were awarded to her in question no. 30 in Paper-1 and question no. 40 in Paper-2.

4. Thereupon, the petitioner made representations to both respondent no.1 and 2 with regard to her grievance of non-awarding of marks for question no. 30 and question no. 40, which were rejected by both the respondents.

5. Since no action was taken by the respondents, therefore, the petitioner has approached this court seeking directions to award marks to the petitioner for questions under challenge.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had given correct answer to question no. 30 of Paper-1, however, the respondent has not awarded the marks on account of electrical and technical mistake of the OMR scanner machine. He relied upon books namely, "Business Legends" of Penguin publication written by Gita Piramal and "Indian Business and Nationalist politics 1931-39" of Cambridge Publication written by Claude Markovtits, to submit that the answer given by the petitioner to question no. 40 of Paper-2 is correct as against the answer given by respondent no.2. He also contends that due to mistake on part of the respondents, the petitioner was not declared qualified for JRF since she falls short by less than 1 percent marks to clear the cut-off percentage.

7. Learned counsel submits that respondent no.2, instead of displaying the proposed answer sheet, had directly declared result in violation of Clause 25 of the notification dated 11.08.2017. He further contends that none of the clauses of the said notification provides for submitting a representation regarding the answer key within the stipulated time.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2, while controverting the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the objections against the provisional answer key were to be made during the stipulated time when the provisional answer key was displayed on the website i.e., 12th December to 18th December, 2017. However, during the said period, the petitioner had challenged the answer key with respect to only question no. 40 of Paper-2, and question no. 30 of Paper-1 was later challenged on 7th February, 2018, after more than a month had elapsed from declaration of the final result.

9. Learned counsel while referring to OMR answer sheet of the petitioner pertaining to Paper-1, submits that the petitioner has partially circled Option (1) and at the same time has also darkened Option (4) in response to question no.30, which renders the answer invalid since it is in violation of the instructions prescribed under Cla