Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV NARULA
Shreya Yadav – Appellant
Versus
National Testing Agency – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek pre-emptive measures against omr tampering. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners claim past tampering of omr sheets warrants current protections. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's previous ruling found insufficient evidence for interim relief. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. incomplete and unsubstantiated allegations lead to dismissal of claims. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. petitions dismissed due to lack of merit and valid cause of action. (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)--On the basis of a mere apprehension, Petitioners have approached this Court for directions that in their opinion would pre-empt tampering of Optical Mark Recognition ["OMR"] answer sheets in the forthcoming National Eligibility cum Entrance Examination-2022 (Undergraduate) ["NEET"]. The reliefs sought are as follows:
(i) Direct the Respondent 1, 2 & 3 to appropriately secure the image of the OMR answer sheet of Petitioner at Petitioner's exam centre, immediately after completion of the NEET-2022 examination by Petitioner with further direction to transmit the image of the OMR answer sheet to the mobile number (XXXXXXXXX) of parents of Petitioner in presence of Petitioner,
(ii) Direct the filin
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....
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.
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 submission of forged documents in examination processes can lead to legal action against the candidate, and petitions based on such submissions may be dismissed.
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
