Back
C. V. KARTHIKEYAN
K. S. Manoj – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to Government, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent pertaining to (i)National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (UG) – 2020 Score Card issued in the name of the petitioner dated 16.10.2020, (ii)Second OMR answer sheet issued in the name of the petitioner downloaded on 17.10.2020 and (iii)2nd respondent''s e-mail response dated 26.10.2020, quash the same and to issue directions to the 2nd respondent to declare the results and rank of the petitioner in NEET (UG) – 2020 as 594 to 720 marks commensurate with his performance as reflected in first OMR answer sheet uploaded on 16.10.2020 FN and issue consequential directions to the 3rd and 4th respondents to allow the participation of the petitioner in the 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).)
1. This writ petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records on the file of the 2nd respondent / National Testing Agency, (National Eligibility
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.
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 affirmed that the integrity of official examination records is paramount, and claims based on discrepancies without credible evidence are insufficient to challenge the results.
Disputed questions of fact and elaborate evidence required for adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution.
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.
Examination authorities must ensure the integrity of examination materials; errors in handling can lead to unjust penalties for candidates.
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
