High Court of Meghalaya
Eleazer Vincent Lyngdoh vs National Testing Agency (Nta) Through on 14 August, 2024
Author: H. S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew
2024:MLHC:734
Serial No. 02
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 270 of 2024 Date of Decision: 14.08.2024
1.Eleazer Vincent Lyngdoh
2. Tofany Suchiang
3.Alizza Merily S. Laloo
4. Joshaviah Onan Paswet
5.Weibha Nongtdu Lakiang
6.Amikha D. Manih
7.Darishisha Syiem
8.Banrilang Syiem
9.Suffiliana Tariang
10.Feemeerida Blah :::Petitioners
-Vs-
1.National Testing Agency (NTA) through
Chairperson (Governing Body)
Office at: First Floor, NSIC-MDBP Building,
Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110020
2.Ministry of Education (Government of India)
through Secretary (Higher Education)
1
2024:MLHC:734
Office at: Room No. 128-C, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001
3.Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
(Government of India) through Secretary (H&W)
Office at: Room No. 156-A, Nirman Bhawan,
Delhi-110011
4.State of Meghalaya through Commissioner and
Secretary, Department of Education, Department
of Education, Office at: Room No:222, Ground
Floor Additional Secretariat, Shillong-793001,
Meghalaya :::Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Ms. Y. Pallavi, Adv. with
Mr. E.R. Chyne, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. T. Mehta, SGI with
Mr. R. Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI
Ms. P. Shrivastava, Adv.
Ms. A. Pradhan, Adv.(For R 1-3)
Mr. N.D. Chullai, AAG with
Ms. R. Colney, GA(For R 4)
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
2
2024:MLHC:734
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
2024:MLHC:734
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,
2024:MLHC:734
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 students, appropriate
orders be passed, directing the respondent No. 1 to conduct a re-
examination for the petitioners.
4. Mr. R. Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents
No. 1-3, at the outset has submitted that the report of the Invigilators has
clearly stated that the candidates were given extra time and that the bell
was rung at 5:35 PM, and that no candidate left the hall before 5:35 PM. As
such, he contends whatever time was lost in the distribution of the question
papers, in both the centres at Jowai and Nongpoh, the same was made up
by adjusting the time as per NTA guidelines. It is also submitted that the
case of the petitioners is not on the same footing with 1563 candidates from
2024:MLHC:734
certain centres, or whom the respondent No. 1, had held re-examination,
inasmuch as, in respect of those candidates, the grace marks awarded for
shortage of time was scrapped, whereas, in the case of the petitioners
additional time was allowed. He lastly submits that the writ petition being
devoid of merit, deserves no consideration.
5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on examination
the materials on record, more specifically the affidavit of the respondent
No. 1, it can be seen from the documents attached hereto, that there was
indeed some confusion with regard to the distribution of 2 sets of question
papers, as alleged by the petitioners, but also the fact that emerges is that,
the time lost was readjusted. As submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the City Co-ordinator of Jowai by letter dated 06.05.2024, had
reported that it took 20 minutes and a bit more to rectify the situation,
though the time was readjusted accordingly. A perusal of the report dated
07.05.2024, of the Invigilators at Para - 15 and 16, had noted as follows.
"15. At 2:00 pm, the candidates started writing their
answers, some candidates attempted on orange OMR sheet.
Due to the confusion, the City Coordinator and
Superintendents tried to contact NTA authority, regarding
which set of booklet was to be distributed to the candidates.
2024:MLHC:734
However, the network was jammed by NTA security agents
from 1:00pm till the end of the exam as per protocol.
16. At 2:15pm. Some of the invigilators realised that on the
attendance sheet, the column to fill in the serial number and
code number of the test booklet and OMR sheet was meant
for only one test booklet and only one OMR sheet. Then it
was realised that the candidates had to attempt only one set
of test booklet. Immediately, the information was conveyed
to the City Coordinator and all invigilators by the Observer
and Superintendents. The invigilators then collected back
the booklets the details of which had not been filled in the
attendance sheet. In the entire process, some candidates had
filled in, the details of the yellow booklet and majority of the
candidates have filled in details of the pink booklet."
6. The report in the subsequent paragraphs further goes on to record
that no candidates left the exam hall before 5:35 PM, and that they were
given extra time. The NEET examination report for the Jowai centre dated
17.05.2024, has also recorded the said lapse, which was attributed to the
unawareness about the 2 sets of question papers from 2 different custodian
banks, which were collected and both sets opened and distributed. The
report however, records that nothing was done on purpose, and that the loss
of 20-25 minutes was adjusted. With regard to the examination report for
Nongpoh centre, similar lapse had occurred, inasmuch as, the booklet
2024:MLHC:734
received from one bank was distributed first, and then followed by the
second set received from the second bank, and the said report also records
that corrective action was taken, and extra time was given to the candidates
to complete the exam as there was misdistribution.
7. From the facts as discussed above, the fact that certain lapses had
occurred is undeniable, and especially in an examination atmosphere, the
tension and anxiety caused to the candidates, who had sat for the test can
well be imagined. The NEET (UG) exams 2024, has received considerable
national attention, as the validity of the test was questioned, and the matter
was taken up by the Supreme Court and disposed of by the judgment dated
23.07.2024. The petitioners who had also joined cause, withdrew their writ
petition, but however, have now sought to be given the benefit allowed to
1563 students, for re-test on the ground that they are similarly situated. In
this context, it has to be noted that the NTA/respondent No. 1, had allotted
grace marks to the 1563 candidates, at certain centres who did not have the
opportunity to utilize the entire duration of the exam, that is, 3 hours 20
minutes, which was interfered with by the Supreme Court, by directing a
re-test for the said candidates.
8. In the instant case, however, the lapse was detected and by the
estimate of the Invigilators, and as per the NTA guidelines, additional time
of 15 minutes had been allowed, and therefore, the exam instead of
2024:MLHC:734
concluding at 5:20 PM, was allowed to continue till 5:35 PM. Further, a
fact that cannot be ignored is that, all the candidates did not leave before
5:35 PM. From the sequence of events therefore, notwithstanding the lapse,
in the distribution of the question papers, extra time having been allowed in
both the centres and though the same alleged to be insufficient, in the
considered view of this Court, though there may be a marginal difference,
between the time lost and compensated, in the absence of any other
materials to show that the time lost was more significant, no case has been
made out for any interference by this Court.
9. In the result therefore, and in view of the discussions made herein
above, the writ petition not disclosing the violation of the petitioners' rights
in any manner, is not entertained and is accordingly dismissed.
Judge
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
