Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV NARULA
Sabareesh Rajan – Appellant
Versus
National Testing Agency – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of neet 2020 and 2021 omr sheet issues (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. allegations of forgery regarding omr sheets (Para 4) |
| 3. court's direction regarding omr sheets (Para 5) |
| 4. contestation of admission and maintainability (Para 8 , 12) |
| 5. disputed facts affecting writ jurisdiction (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. basis of granting or denying relief (Para 15 , 16) |
| 7. timeliness of admission requests (Para 17) |
| 8. final decision and court orders (Para 18 , 20) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)
THE CONTROVERSY-OMR SHEETS
1. Petitioners are aspirants of National Eligibility Entrance Test (UG) [NEET 2020]. NEET Examination is conducted via pen and paper-based mode in Multiple Choice Questions ("MCQ") format. The candidates are required to fill their responses to the questions by filling/shading the corresponding circle on Optical Mark Recognition ("OMR") sheets - which is then used to digitally read answers/information. Apart from the responses, candidates are also required to fill in personal details and affix their signature and thumb impression for identification. These OMR sheets are provided to candidates at examination centre at the time of examination.
BRIEF FACTS
2. Since the gro
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 unsubstantiated nature of beliefs and lack of evidence are insufficient to establish a valid cause of action in seeking reliefs through a writ petition.
Allegations of examination tampering must be substantiated with credible evidence to establish a legal cause of action for relief.
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.
Presumption in favor of the official record and the consequences of deliberate tampering with official documents.
Disputed questions of fact and elaborate evidence required for adjudication 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.
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.
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
