The court held that examination lapses did not violate candidates' rights as adequate adjustments were made, and no significant evidence warranted a re-examination.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. The petitioners who had appeared in the National Eligibility-cum- Entrance Test (UG) 2024 on 05.05.2024 at Jowai and Nongpoh exam centres, are before this Court with the complaint that they were denied the allocated time of 3 hours and 20 minutes to complete the paper, inasmuch as, a lot of time had been wasted due to supply of wrong question papers and contradictory instructions given to the students by the examiners. The petitioners and other similarly situated students, it appears were supplied 2 sets of question papers namely (i) QRST and (ii) MNOP, which contained entirely different set of questions, which resulted in the wasting of substantial time to correct the mistake. The corrective measures were that in some cases, where students were supplied the question paper from the MNOP set, the same was taken back and replaced with the question paper from the QRST set and vice-versa, while in other cases, some students who had been provided both the sets of MNOP and QRST at the beginning, had one question paper taken back. The contention of the petitioners is that due to the lack of clarity, as to which paper was to be answered, and due to the confusion, the petitioners were denied almost 40-45 minutes on an average of the allocated time period, for attempting the question paper. It has been submitted that though the petitioners made a representation in this regard on 06.05.2024, to the respondent No. 1 (National Testing Agency/NTA), and the State Government demanding re-examination, in view of the anomalies, the request was not accepted, whereas, in cases of other similarly situated persons, a decision was taken to hold a re-test on 23.06.2024.

2. Ms. Y. Pallavi, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the entire confusion was caused due to the unclear directives given by the respondent No. 1 to the Centre Superintendent at the two examination centres. With regard to the centre at Jowai, the learned counsel has referred to a letter dated 06.05.2024, from the City Co-ordinator to the Director Exam of the respondent No. 1, wherein it has been mentioned that it took 20 minutes and a bit more to correct the mistakes. Reference has also been made to the report of the Invigilators dated 07.05.2024, which has been annexed to the affidavit of the respondent No. 1, wherein, she submits that though more than 20 minutes had been taken to supply the correct question papers, an extra time of only 15 minutes was allowed to the students. From the affidavit itself she contends, the lapse on the part of the examiners has been shown to have been caused due to the fact that there was no proper guidance from the respondent No. 1, on both sets of question papers. Learned counsel has further referred to other letters of communication including an inquiry report conducted by the Additional District Magistrate, West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai, which recommended re-examination in view of the confusion caused. With regard to the Nongpoh centre, the learned counsel has submitted that the Centre Superintendent himself, by letter dated 06.05.2024, forwarded the grievances of the petitioners to the respondent No. 1, on the mix up. It has also been submitted that though the petitioners had initially approached the Supreme Court by way of WP(C) No. 381 of 2024, the same was withdrawn with liberty to pursue the matter before the jurisdictional High Court, which was allowed and as such, the petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition.

3. Learned counsel then prays that as the time allowed was too short, apart from the confusion and trauma caused to the stu