Point of Law: Court is to presume the correctness of answer key and proceed on that assumption. In the event of any doubt, benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Suresh Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Surendra Prasad Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Mr. Asheem Mukherjee, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for following relief:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no.2 to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner contained in representation dated 08.06.2017 (Annexure-5) for being re-evaluate the OMR sheet Paper-II and amended result will be declare.

(ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iii) Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.”

3. In the present writ petition, counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. Both the parties agree that this petition be disposed of at this stage without calling for any further affidavit.

4. In the present writ petition, the case of the petitioner is that he was pursuing study in Kashi Hindu Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi and preparing for UGC/NET-2017. In connection with the same, he applied for UGC/NET and also appeared in the examination conducted by respondent no.2. The petitioner was allotted Role Number-84024171 and at the time of examination, in Paper-II of Hindustani Music, against the question no.32, as to how many Tantriyas (strings) are there in Alapini Vini,, the petitioner has given answer as option no.3 i.e. three tantriyas (strings), copies of the relevant part of the question paper being Paper-II of Hindustani Music as well as OMR sheet have been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that after the examination was over, the answer-key was published on the concerned website, wherein against question no.32, a wrong answer as option no. 1 i.e. two Tantriyas (strings), has been published, whereas the correct option was option no.3 i.e. three Tantriya (strings), a copy of the answer-key published on the website has been enclosed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the calculation/answer sheet was also prepared by the Central Board of Secondary Education, UGC-NET, wherein against the question no. 32 of Paper-II, wrong answer was mentioned and the answer of the petitioner was taken to be incorrect.

6. Further, in support of answer given by the petitioner against question no.32, he submitted documentary evidence like books written by respective writers, copies of relevant parts of the books have been enclosed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner has made an application before respondent no.2, namely, Director (UGC-NET), Central Board of Secondary Education, Gautam Buddha Nagar on 8th June, 2017, wherein he has disclosed all the facts and circumstances of the case and also made a request to re-evaluate the answer given by the petitioner against question no.32 of Paper-II of the Hindustani Music and thereafter declare the result accordingly, so that the future of the petitioner may be protected, a copy of the same has been enclosed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition.

7. In the petition, it has lastly been stated by the petitioner that the selection of the petitioner for J.R.F. has been obstructed as he secured 0.56% less mark in merit, although the petitioner had given correct answer against question no.32 of Paper-II of Hindustani Music, which was wrongly evaluated by the respondent, hence, the petitioner made a request to respondent no.2 by means of an application dated 13th July, 2017 for re-evaluating the OMR sheet of Paper-II qua question no.32 and declare the result, accordingly.

8. This writ petition was presented before the Court on 13th November, 2017 and no interim order has been granted in favour of the petitioner.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits before this Court that in the entrance examination of UGC/NET-2017 conducted by re