Ishani Kawatra vs National Boarad Of Examiners And ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 7088 Del

70
$~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     W.P.(C) 7708/2012

%                                            Judgment dated 11.12.2012

      ISHANI KAWATRA                             ..... Petitioner
               Through:        Mr.Sanjay Bhatt and Ms.Priya Pathania, Adv

                    versus

      NATIONAL BOARAD OF EXAMINERS AND ORS..... Respondent

Through: Ms.Archana Gaur, Advocate for R-3 Mr.Rakesh Gosai and Mr.Kunal, Advocates for respondent no.1/ NBE

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) CM.No.19475/2012 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 7708/2012 & CM.No.19474/2012

3. In this case petitioner had joined the MBBS course in the year 2007 and cleared the same in the year 2012. In the year 2012, the respondent no.1 issued an information bulletin for National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (Post Graduate) for admission in the 2013 session in MD/MS/ Post Graduate Diploma Courses. Petitioner prepared for the said examination and she made an on-line registration in October, 2012. Petitioner received an e-mail confirming her registration for the NEET (PG) 2013. On 19.11.2012 petitioner appeared in the DNB-CET examination at Chandigarh centre and in support of her identity, petitioner produced her

Voter I.D. Card, in addition to her admit card and was allowed to appear in the said examination. For the NEET (PG) examination, petitioner received her admit card from respondent no.1 on 21.11.2012, which specified the date of examination as 06.12.2012. The respondent no.1 had scheduled the NEET (PG) admission for 2013 session from 23.11.2012 to 06.12.2012.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that when she reached the examination venue at 9:15 a.m. carrying one of the specified identity card i.e. her voter identity card, the petitioner was not allowed to appear in the examination on the ground that her surname as was appearing in the admit card i.e. "Ishani Kawatra", did not appear in the Voter identity card. Counsel submits that the attitude of the respondent no.1 was extremely high- handed and insensitive and the petitioner was not allowed to produce other documents, including the driving licence and petitioner was not allowed to appear in the examination. It is also submitted that it is common knowledge that in the voters identity card full names are not filled up. It is submitted that in the present case, the first name and the date of birth of the petitioner was matching, still petitioner was not allowed to appear in the examination.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that at this stage, petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondent no.1 to permit her to appear in the NEET (PG) examination for session 2013, in case any supplementary examination is held in any part of India.

6. Counsel for respondent no.1, who enters appearance on an advance copy submits that at the moment there is no such proposal, but in case such an examination is held, the petitioner will be permitted to appear.

7. Although the purpose to call upon a candidate to produce an identification other than an admit card would have been introduced to ensure that the

examination is conducted in a fair and transparent manner, with a view to ensure that there is no doubt with regard to the identity of the candidate and to ensure that an imposter does not appear in the examination, but this safeguard cannot be taken to an unreasonable extent that a legitimate candidate is declined permission to appear in the examination at the whims of the examiner present. The present case reveals a rather sad state of affairs, where petitioner was declined permission to appear in the NEET (PG) examination on the ground that her name in the admit card did not match with the name on the Voter Identity Card. The only difference was that in the admit card the surname of the petitioner was mentioned, but in the Voter Identity Card her surname was not mentioned. The examiner did not bother to consider that her date of birth and parentage was the same. In support of her identity, petitioner called her mother, who brought her original driving licence which contained the surname of the petitioner which tallied with the admit card, which was produced at 9:50 a.m. before start of the examination, however, the petitioner was declined permission to appear in the examination.

8. To my mind the attitude of the examiner was harsh, insensitive, unreasonable and the act of examiner was without application of mind. The examiner did not consider the fact that the petitioner was being deprived of her right to appear in the examination. Although the examination is over and the petitioner would have lost one year, but for the future it is deem appropriate that the matter shall be taken up by the National Board of Examinations and suitable instructions should be given, so that in future a legitimate candidate is not deprived of his/her right to appear in the examination, on such grounds as in the present case.

9. In case examination [NEET (PG) examination for session 2013] is held, information of the same will be put on the website by the respondents to enable the petitioner to appear for the same.

10. With above directions, writ petition stands disposed of.

G.S.SISTANI, J DECEMBER 11, 2012 ssn