SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 1873

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, JJ.
National Testing Agency, Rep. by TSG, NEET Unitm, Uttar Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Minor SP. Shree Harini, Rep. by her father and Natural Guardian, G. Saravakumar & Others - Respondents
W.A. Nos.1892 of 2021 & C.M.P. No.12087 of 2021 & W.P. No.16958 of 2021 & C.M.P. No.17966 of 2021
Decided On : 07-09-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. G. Rajagopalan,
For the Respondents:Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, Senior Counsels, Mr. R.P. Pragadish, Central Govt. Standing Counsel, Mr. A.R. Sakthivel, Senior Panel Counsel, Sunitakumari, M/s. AL. Gandhimathi, Mr. Shubaranjani Ananth, Mr. G. Nagarajan, Advocates.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 – Articles 14 and 226 - Issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Seeking to quash above rejection order - Writ petition as has been culled out from the affidavit - Since she was assessed to be superior range of intelligence ahead of her age so also her IQ level she was given double promotion in her Middle School to High School class and she stood top in her school in Standard which course she completed in March She is ambitious to become a Medical Practitioner - She will complete years of age in May which is the minimum age limit prescribed for writing National Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test (NEET) - As she has as per Neuro Psychological Clinical Reports her father on her behalf submitted a representation dated 30-07-2019 to National Testing Agency (NTA) seeking permission to participate in NEET which was rejected on - While so NTA published Information Bulletin for NEET examination – Held, It is pertinent to note that first respondent has pursued he examination through Central Board of Secondary Education (in short CBSE) which is a national level Board of Education in India for public and private schools controlled and managed by Union of India and as per Guidelines of Central Board of Secondary Education minimum age to appear in board examination is 14 years as on 31st of December of year of examination - First respondent was given double promotion from 7th standard to standard and allowed her to appear for 10th board examination even before completing years of age and there was no objection all along by CBSE for first respondent and even to appear for 12th board examination while she was below age of - Therefore when first respondent has been permitted by CBSE to complete her 12th board examination even before age 16 I feel that there may be no justification on part of respondent to reject her request for age relaxation - However since Rule is specifically provided a bar which this Court cannot struck down – Appeal Dismissed

JUDGMENT :

Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 17.03.2021 in W.P.No.3367 of 2021.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamu calling for the records relating to the order dated 09.08.2021 in F.No.NTA/Legal/MADHC/WP367/2021 of the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 herein to permit the petitioner to apply and sit for the NEET (UG 2021) examination scheduled to be held in 12th September 2021 without insisting for completion of 17 years as on December 2021.)

1. The National Testing Agency laid challenge to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.03.2021 in W.P.No.3367 of 2021 in this appeal.

2. The writ petition is filed by Minor SP. Shree Harini through her Father and Natural Guardian seeking to quash the order of the second respondent dated 09.08.2021 in F.No.NTA/Legal/MADHC/WP367/2021 and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 herein to permit the petitioner to apply and sit for the NEET (UG 2021) examination scheduled to be held in 12.09.2021 without insisting for completion of 17 years as on December 2021.

3. The short facts leading to the filing of this writ appeal and the writ petition, as has been culled out from the affidavit of the writ petition, are as under:

3.1. SP.Shree Harini was born on 04.05.2005. Since she was assessed to be superior range of intelligence ahead of her age, so also her IQ level, she was given double promotion in her Middle School to High School class and she stood top in her school in 10th Standard and 12th Standard, which course she completed in March, 2021. She is ambitious to become a Medical Practitioner. She will complete 17 years of age in May 2022, which is the minimum age limit prescribed for writing National Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test (NEET). As she has I.Q. at 143, as per the Neuro Psychological Clinical Reports, her father, on her behalf, submitted a representation dated 30.07.2019 to the National Testing Agency (NTA) seeking permission to participate in NEET 2021, which was rejected on 22.08.2019. While so, the NTA published Information Bulletin for NEET (UG) 2021 examination.

3.2. She filed writ petition only in the year 2021, i.e., W.P.No.3367 of 2021 seeking to quash the above rejection order dated 22.08.2019 and to direct the respondents 1 to 3 therein to permit her to sit for the NEET 2021 Examination without insisting for completion of 17 years as on December, 2021.

3.3. A learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner appear before the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), Bangalore, Karnataka, subjecting her to I.Q. analysis and if she is eligible to appear in the NEET UG 2021 examination, she may be permitted to sit in the examination. Aggrieved over the same, the instant appeal is filed.

3.4. Accordingly, she appeared before the NIMHANS on 22.06.2021 and the said authority, after assessing her gave a certificate. Armed with that, she sent a similar representation dated 19.07.2021 to the NTA. Since she could not apply online owing to her under age, she approached NTA, citing the order of this Court. According to her, she was asked to approach the said authority on 09.08.2021, on which date, the order rejecting her representation dated 19.07.2021 was e-mailed to her. In that backdrop, questioning the rejection order dated 09.08.2021, W.P.No.16958 of 2021 is instituted.

3.5. When this writ petition was listed before the writ Court, a learned Single Judge vide order dated 02.09.2021 directed the Registry to post it along with the instant writ appeal after getting appropriate orders of the Hon’ble Chief Justice. Thus, the writ petition is tagged with this appeal and posted before us, as per the order of the Hon’ble Chief Justice.

4. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Senior Counsel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top