Deevatheertha.P vs The Ministry Of Education
2021 Latest Caselaw 22381 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                    WP(C) NO. 23036 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

         DEEVATHEERTHA.P
         AGED 20 YEARS
         D/O.BABU, POOVATHUR HOUSE, KAKKODI P.O.,
         KOZHIKODE-673611.

         BY ADVS.
         SRINATH GIRISH
         P.JERIL BABU


RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
         GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
         SECRETARY, NARIMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110011.
    2    THE NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR - GENERAL, C20, 1 A8,
         SECTOR 62, IITK OUTREACH CENTRE, NOIDA-201309.

         BY ADV SHRI.NIRMAL S, SC, NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY
         SRI.S.MANU, ASGI

     THIS WRIT PETITION       (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP    FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.11.2021,      THE COURT ON THE SAME     DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.23036/2021
                                :2 :




                        JUDGMENT

~~~~~~~~~

Dated this the 9th day of November, 2021

The petitioner, who has appeared in the National

Eligibility Test (UG) 2021 (NEET), prays to direct the 2 nd

respondent to consider Ext.P6 representation and clear the

discrepancies in the recording of her response in Ext.P3 OMR

Answer Sheet before declaring her results in the NEET.

2. The petitioner appeared in the NEET Examination

conducted by the 2nd respondent-NTA. The examination was

held on 12.09.2021. After the examination, the petitioner

received her Optical Mark Reading (OMR) through registered

e-mail. If any candidate wanted to challenge OMR, the

challenge should have been made on or before 17.10.2021.

The petitioner had to be with her sister in a hospital from

14.10.2021 to 20.10.2021. Hence, she could read the e-mail

only on 19.10.2021.

WP(C) No.23036/2021

3. On scrutiny, the petitioner found that many of the

questions she had answered were seen unanswered in the

OMR. According to the petitioner, it could be only due to some

mistake in the OMR recording. The petitioner sent Ext.P6 e-

mail to the respondents on 19.10.2021 pointing out the

anomaly. The petitioner states that she has spent many days

and hours sincerely studying for the examination in order to

achieve her ambition of becoming a Doctor. If petitioner's

results are declared without clearing the discrepancies, the

petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and untold hardship.

4. The 2nd respondent filed a statement in opposition

and produced a photocopy of the OMR Answer Sheet of the

petitioner. The 2nd respondent submitted that Annexure-R2(a)

is the copy of the OMR Sheet answered by the petitioner. The

so-called answered questions are not seen actually answered

by the petitioner in the OMR in possession of the 2 nd

respondent. There is multi-level checking of the OMR of the

candidates appearing in the NEET examination. There is no

anomaly or discrepancy in the Answer sheet of the petitioner. WP(C) No.23036/2021

The writ petition is without any merit.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Standing Counsel representing the 2 nd

respondent. I have also heard the Assistant Solicitor General

of India representing the 1st respondent.

6. From the pleadings available in the writ petition, it is

evident that the 2nd respondent is following a scientific method

in conducting the NEET Examination. The Test Booklet and

OMR Sheet are distributed to the students at the time of the

examination and the candidate simultaneously signs the

Attendance Sheet on receiving the Test Booklet. Thereafter,

the Invigilator instructs all the candidates to fill in the Test

Booklet, Original OMR Sheet and the Attendance Sheet.

7. The candidates themselves fill their roll number and

Test Booklet number in OMR. The OMR Sheet and Test

Booklet given to a candidate have common Test Booklet

number and Test Booklet Code printed on them. The 2 nd

respondent has displayed the scanned copy of the actual

OMR Sheets and their recorded answers on 15.10.2021. The WP(C) No.23036/2021

candidates could have challenged her OMR till 17.10.2021.

The petitioner did not. There is nothing on record nor any

circumstances to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner has

answered the questions found unanswered in

Annexure-R2(a).

In such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled

to any relief in this writ petition. The writ petition is hence

dismissed.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/29.11.2021 WP(C) No.23036/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23036/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM DATED 15.7.2021 SENT BY DEVATHEERTHA P. TO THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMIT CARD -

PROVISIONAL ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION TO DEVATHEERTHA P.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NEET OMR ANSWER SHEET SENT BY THE NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY TO DEVATHEERTHA P. BY EMAIL ON 15.10.2021. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CT SCAN REPORT DATED 14.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF RADIODIAGNOSIS, CALICUT MEDICAL COLLEGE, IN RESPECT OF ARCHANA.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 20.10.2021 ISSUED BY INDIRA GANDHI CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL, KOCHI, IN RESPECT OF DR. ARCHANA BABU.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 19.10.2021 SENT BY DEVATHEERTHA P. TO THE NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT SHOWING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PETITIONER IN THE NEET (UG) 2021 HELD ON 12/09/2021

RESPONDENT'S EXTS:

ANNEXURE-R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE OMR/ANSWERSHEET OF THE CANDIDATE.

ANNEXURE-R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE DT 15.10.2021.

ANNEXURE-R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE CARD OF THE CANDIDATE.