IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
Ayushi Patel - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and ors - Respondents
WRIT C NO. 5341 OF 2024.
Decided On : 18-06-2024
JUDGMENT
Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.
Heard Sri. Piyush Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Varun Pandey holding brief of Sri. S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate & D.S.G.I. for opposite party no. 1 and Sri. Shashank Bhasin, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
2. This Court has passed the order dated 12.6.2024 which reads as under :
"1.Heard Sri. Shailesh Sachan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Varun Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri. S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate and the Deputy Solicitor General of India for Union of India and Sri. Shashank Bhasin, learned counsel who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party No.2, the same is taken on record.
2.By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(I) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No.2 to check the OMR sheet manually of the petitioner, in the interest of justice.
(II) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite party No.1 to conduct an enquiry against the opposite party No.2, in the interest of justice.
(III) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties not to start the procedure of counselling during the pendency of the present writ petition, in the interest of justice."
3. Sri. Shashank Bhasin, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has produced the original OMR Sheet, Attendance Sheet and the Score Card of the petitioner before the court for perusal, which are taken on record. On these papers, the application number of the petitioner is 240411340741 and the petitioner herself has signed on such papers so, as per Sri. Bhasin, she is acknowledging her application number as 240411340741.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown the Annexure No.4 of the petition to demonstrate that the Application Number for National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (UG) 2024, NEET (UG) -2024 of the petitioner is 240411840741.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid application number is consistent in Annexure No.9 of the petition, which is photocopy of one e.mail relating to NTA NEET UG EXAM 2024 sent by one Sri. Deshraj Singh addressed to the petitioner apprising her that NTA received damaged (torn) OMR on the same Application Form Number. Further, Annexure No.10 of the petition is a mail of the petitioner sent to NEET wherein she has indicated the same application number.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has provided photocopy of the some documents/ mails being exchanged between the petitioner and the NTA wherein the same application number has been indicated, though the original papers of the petitioner so produced by Sri. Shashank Bhasin indicates the different Application Form Number as 240411340741. The documents/mails produced by the petitioner are taken on record.
7. At this stage, Sri. Bhasin has stated that he is unable to understand as to why the petitioner is indicating another application number in her mails than the number which has been acknowledged by her on the original papers.
8. The careful perusal thereof reveals that all the numbers shown in the Application Form of the petitioner are the same except the middle digit/number 3 mentioned in the original Application Form, whereas the details provided by the petitioner contains the digit/number as 8.
9. On being confronted Sri. Bhasin, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, to clarify the aforesaid position, he prays for and is granted three days time to seek complete written instructions on that point and produce all original documents of the petitioner from the stage of her application form till declaration of result as well as the documents with regard to e.mail communication with NEET.
10. The petitioner shall also produce all her original documents enclosed with the petition.
11. List/ put up this case on 18
AI
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.
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.
The evaluation undertaken by the examining bodies should not be viewed with suspicion unless it is prima facie established that it was not fair or transparent.
Adherence to examination instructions is mandatory; deviations such as double bubbling justify evaluation outcomes, and courts should not interfere in such cases.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.