JUDGMENT :

Paresh Upadhyay, J.

Prayer: Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 01.03.2021 in W.P.No.15959 of 2020.

1. Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 01.03.2021 recorded on W.P.No.15959 of 2020. This appeal is by the National Testing Agency –the second respondent.

2. Heard Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Advocate and Mr.M.Ravi, learned advocate for the first respondent –the writ petitioner.

3. It is noted that both the learned advocates have taken this Court extensively through the material on record and have made submissions on merits. Authorities are also relied by both the sides. The same is not noted in detail in this order, in view of the final order which we intend to pass.

4. Having considered the material on record, this Court finds as under:-

4.1 The writ petitioner has approached this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to allow him to participate in counselling for admission to Medical Courses (UG) 2020 with reference to 594 out of 720 marks in NEET (UG) 2020 and accordingly provide him admission to Medical Course (UG). It needs to be therefore adjudicated whether the petitioner can be granted admission in the course considering his merit with reference to 594 out of 720 marks in NEET (UG) 2020.

4.2 This Court is conscious that when there is difference between the say of a student vis-a-vis that of the State Authorities, more particularly when it is the agency like appellant before this Court, normally the say of the State Authorities is accepted to be true, on the premise that they can not have any interest to take any stand against a student. All the propositions of law are based on this assumption. We would have also followed the same. While considering writ petition, learned Single Judge also kept such proposition in view and had considered the matter. But when more than one Hon’ble Judge of this Court, on independent assessment of the material and circumstances have thought it proper to grant relief to the student, we need to look at the issue with little more seriousness. It is noted that writ petition was examined on different dates before different Benches and at least two Hon’ble Judges of this Court found that there was something wrong in the synchronization of the result of the test conducted by the Agency.

4.3 On 09.12.2020, learned Single Judge recorded the following order:-

“The petitioner in this case right from the beginning was complaining that the OMR / Answer Sheet that was uploaded on 5.10.2020 in the website of the 2nd respondent showed that the petitioner had taken 594 marks in the NEET-2020 Exams and that this position continued in the website upto 16.10.2020. However, this position changed all of a sudden on 17.10.2020 and the petitioner noticed that there was a complete change in the OMR Sheet in the same website, wherein the marks came down to 248. This Court directed the original OMR Sheet to be furnished to the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent and it was also verified by the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. On verification they found that the OMR Sheet that has been furnished was the one which was uploaded in the website on 17.10.2020.

2. Initially, this Court was not convinced to dig deep into this issue, since the OMR uploaded in the website of the 2 nd respondent was also physically shown to the petitioner after it was furnished by the 2nd respondent. This Court therefore directed the 2nd respondent to file an additional counter affidavit and explain as to how, two OMR Sheets can be uploaded for the very same candidate showing completely different marks.

3. The 2nd respondent filed an additional counter affidavit and reiterated the stand that there was only one OMR Sheet that was uploaded in the website of the 2nd respondent and which reflected that the petitioner had secured 248 marks.

4. The Additional Rejoinder filed by the