Kerala High Court
Minha Sadique vs Union Of India on 3 June, 2023
WP(C) No.16285/2023 1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
Saturday, the 3rd day of June 2023 / 13th Jyaishta, 1945
WP(C) NO. 16285 OF 2023(I)
PETITIONER:
MINHA SADIQUE, AGED 19 YEARS, D/O. MOHAMMED SADIQUE, ALAYADATH
HOUSE, PALOT VAYAL, VALAPATTANOM P.O, KANNUR-670 010. REPRESENTED BY
HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER - K.C MANOJ, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.
K.GOPALAN, MADAPURA HOUSE, PUZHATHI, KOTTALI P.O, KAKKAT, KANNUR -
670 005.
RESPONDENTS:
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY
OF EDUCATION, 122-C, SHASTRI BHAVAN NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION, POCKET -14, SECTOR -8, DWARAKA PHASE-1,
NEW DELHI- 110077, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY, FIRST FLOOR, NSIC-MDBP BUILDING, OKHLA
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, NEW DELHI - 110 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRPERSON.
4. THE CHAIRPERSON, NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY, FIRST FLOOR, NSIC-MDBP
BUILDING, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, NEW DELHI - 110 020.
Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to direct the third respondent not to publish the results of NEET,
2023 until a fresh examination of the NEET is conducted for the
Petitioner, for the academic year 2023-24, pending final disposal of the
writ petition, in the interest of justice.
This petition coming on for admission upon perusing the petition and
the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments of
M/S. NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP & ABHIRAM T.K., Advocates for the petitioner and
of SRI.NIRMAL S, STANDING COUNSEL for R3 & R4, the court passed the
following:
WP(C) No.16285/2023 2/8
GOPINATH P., J.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P (C) No.16285 OF 2023
-------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JUNE, 2023
ORDER
The petitioner is a student who appeared for the National Eligibility
cum-Entrance Examination for Under Graduate courses (NEET-UG)
which was conducted by the 3rd respondent on the 7th of May 2023. The
time of the examination was from 2.00 P.M to 5.20 P.M. It is the case of
the petitioner that the test booklet issued to the petitioner at the
examination hall did not contain four pages of the chemistry section. It is
the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner immediately brought
this matter to the notice of the invigilators and the test booklet of the
petitioner had been taken away at 2.20 p.m, the petitioner was provided
with a new test booklet bearing code No.6226752 only at 3.30 p.m. The
petitioner was provided extra time (30 minutes) and was permitted to
write the examination till 5.50 p.m. It is the case of the petitioner that
after 5.50 P.M the invigilators asked the petitioner to stop writing the
examination and took away her OMR sheet. She was also asked to write a
declaration that she had no complaints regarding the conduct of the
examination.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
test was from 2 p.m till 5.20 p.m and the petitioner was not in a position
WP(C) No.16285/2023 3/8
to avail of the entire time as the new test booklet was supplied to her only
at 3.30 p.m. It is submitted that immediately after the examination, the
petitioner's father sent an E-mail to the 2 nd respondent regarding the
matter. Further representations were also made, as is evident from
Exts.P7 & P8. The petitioner has then approached this Court through the
above writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus to the 3 rd respondent to
conduct a fresh examination for the petitioner. Alternatively, the
petitioner also prays a direction to the 3 rd respondent to permit the
petitioner to appear and participate in NEET (UG)-2023 Examination to
be held separately for the students of Manipur, in the interest of justice.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the High
Court of Judicature at Mumbai had, through an order dated 01-06-2023
in W.P No.6384/2023, granted relief to a student who suffered an injury
owing to rush at the exam venue and had permitted that student to take
part along with the students of Manipur in the examination scheduled for
the students from Manipur on 06-06-2023.
3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 3
and 4 has obtained instructions and filed a statement. It is pointed out
with reference to the contents of the statement that the petitioner had
reported the fact that certain pages of the booklet were missing only at
2.20 p.m. It is submitted that 30 minutes after the matter was reported,
WP(C) No.16285/2023 4/8
the petitioner was issued with a fresh test booklet, and she was also
provided 30 minutes at the end of the scheduled exam time to
compensate for the time taken to replace the booklet. The reports
submitted by the Centre Superintendent and another official, which are
on record as Annexure-R3 (a) and R3 (b), along with the declaration
given by the petitioner as Annexure-R3 (C) are referred to and it is
pointed out that the petitioner has no case for grant of reliefs sought for
in this writ petition. It is submitted that the order of the Bombay High
Court appears to have been issued based on concession. It is submitted
that the authorities intend to file an appeal against the said order, and
therefore the said order cannot, for more reasons than one be taken as
any precedent for seeking similar relief. It is submitted that the
Rajasthan High Court had rejected a similar request through judgment
dated 30-05-2023 in CWP No.7495/2023. It is further pointed out that
the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court had also
rejected a request by a student to be permitted to write the examination
along with the students of Manipur, which is scheduled to be held on 06-
06-2023. It is pointed out that the Punjab and Haryana High Court only
directed consideration of representation through an order dated 31-05-
2023 in CWP12366/2023.
WP(C) No.16285/2023 5/8
4. The learned counsel would also point out that in terms of the
prospectus issued to the petitioner, the test booklet is supplied 15
minutes before the time fixed for the commencement of the examination.
It is submitted that there is a clear instruction in the prospectus that the
students are required to immediately check the test booklet for any
discrepancies. Reference is made in this regard to Clauses 12.1 and 12.16
in the prospectus. It is also pointed out that the report of the Centre
Superintendent clearly indicates that the petitioner had voluntarily
handed over the OMR answer sheet at 5.50 P.M after completing the
examination, and there is no compulsion by the Invigilators.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4, I
am inclined to grant an interim order to the petitioner. The reasons
which compel me to pass an interim order in favour of the petitioner are
the following:-
(i) It is not disputed that there was a discrepancy in the test booklet
supplied to the petitioner. Even though the learned counsel for
respondents 3 and 4 is right in pointing out that clause 12.16 of the
prospectus requires the student to report any discrepancy
immediately after receiving the booklet, I cannot overlook the fact
that the petitioner is an 18 year old girl who is attempting a highly
WP(C) No.16285/2023 6/8
competitive examination after months of hard work and
preparation. One cannot rule out the fact that the students, such as
the petitioner, may be extremely tensed and nervous, and the fact
that there was a mistake in the test booklet would have completely
shaken her. Considering the age of the petitioner and because she
was writing a highly competitive examination one also cannot rule
out the fact that the petitioner may have missed out to check the
test booklet completely before noticing the discrepancy at about
2.20 p.m which is the time at which the petitioner reported
discrepancy, according to the averments in the writ petition.
(ii) The declaration obtained from the petitioner at the end of the
examination does not prima facie compel me to hold against the
petitioner as the petitioner being an 18 year old student would have
given any declaration as requested by the Invigilators or any official
in charge of the examination without fully comprehending its
implications.
(iii) Absolutely no prejudice would be caused to the respondents by
issuing an interim order as, admittedly, an examination for the
students of Manipur is being held on 06-06-2023 at Bangalore.
The petitioner has also undertaken to appear for the test at
Bangalore.
WP(C) No.16285/2023 7/8
6. Therefore pending consideration of the writ petition, I direct
respondents 3 and 4 to permit the petitioner to attend the examination to
be held at Bangalore on 06-06-2023 for the students of Manipur. The
petitioner will be issued with an admit card to take part in the
examination forthwith. It is made clear that if the petitioner attempts to
write the examination on 06-06-2023, the results, if any obtained by the
petitioner following the examination conducted on 07-05-2023 will stand
cancelled, and the petitioner will have no option to claim that the better
of the results must be accepted.
The above orders are purely provisional and subject to further
orders in the writ petition.
Handover.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
AMG
03-06-2023 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
WP(C) No.16285/2023 8/8
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16285/2023
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE
MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KANNUR
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION VIA E-MAIL DATED
19.05.2023 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE THIRD
RESPONDENT
Annexure R3 (a) True copy of the report submitted by the Center
Superintendent/head
Annexure R3(b) True copy of the report dated 7-05-2023
Annexure R3(c) True copy of the declaration of candidate
03-06-2023 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
