Madras High Court
M.Akash vs Union Of India Represented By on 9 August, 2024
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
W.P.No.16102 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.16102 of 2024
M.Akash ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Union of India represented by
The Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Human Resource Development,
New Delhi.
2. National Testing Agency,
(National Eligibility – cum – Entrance Test (UG) – 2024),
1st floor, NSIC – MDPP Building,
Okla Industrial Estate Phase III,
New Delhi – 110 020.
3. The Chairman,
National Medical Commission,
Satarkta Bhawan, G.P.O.Complex,
Block A, INA,
New Delhi – 110 023. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to
revise the petitioner mark statement to 620 marks instead of 560 marks in
Petitioner roll No.4108030196 and application No.240410953283 as per the
answer sheet and key answer and consequently revise the petitioner's
ranking in the merit list of NEET – (UG) 2024 exam held on 05.05.2024.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16102 of 2024
For Petitioner : Ms.G.Murugendran
For Respondents : Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, ASG
assisted by Mrs.Sunitha Kumari, SC for R2
Mr.A.Kumaraguru for R1
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking to direct the second respondent to revise the petitioner's mark statement to 620 marks instead of 560 marks as per the answer sheet and to consequently revise the petitioner's ranking in the merit list of NEET – (UG) 2024 exam held on 05.05.2024.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he completed his higher secondary in July 2022. Thereafter, he attended the NEET examination during the year 2022 and 2023, due to his failure, he pursued to study for NEET examination and applied for the same on 18.02.2024 vide application No.240410953283 and appeared for examination on 05.05.2024 and the petitioner answered 180 questions out of 200 and on 04.06.2024, the results were published and the key answer sheet and the mark statement were sent to the petitioner by the second respondent and was published in the website as well. When the petitioner verified his answer key with his answer sheet, it 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16102 of 2024 was seen that 160 questions were correctly answered by the petitioner and 20 questions were wrongly answered by him and the total score for 160 questions is arrived at 620 marks out of 720. However, the mark statement issued by the second respondent erroneously shows as 560 out of 720 marks. Therefore, the petitioner was unable to get admission in a medical college. Hence, the present petition has been filed seeking the aforesaid relief.
3. Though very many grounds have been raised in this writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since there are lot of contradictions in the mark statement issued by the second respondent, this Court may direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the matter for passing appropriate orders.
4. The learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by learned Standing counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that admittedly several people from various parts of India are participating in the NEET examination conducted by the Government. However, in the present case, the Optical Mark Recognition sheet (in short 'OMR Sheet') is preserved by the National Testing Agency and whatever, answer shaded by 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16102 of 2024 the petitioner appears in OMR sheet. He produced the OMR sheet of the petitioner before this Court. Learned Addl. Solicitor General submits that there is gross variation in the OMR sheet preserved by the second respondent and the OMR sheet annexed by the petitioner, and the shading lacks resemblance and in such a backdrop it is submitted that the Court has to presume in favour of the State and not in favour of the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner appeared for NEET Examination and it is alleged that the petitioner answered 180 questions out of 200 questions in which he rightly answered 160 questions and secured 640 marks. However, it is the claim of the petitioner that the second respondent had issued the mark statement reflecting the mark of the petitioner as 560 marks instead of 620 marks. This Court compared the OMR sheet annexed by the petitioner and the OMR sheet produced by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the second respondent from which it is seen that there are lot of variations in the answers shaded by the petitioner. The OMR sheet is 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16102 of 2024 preserved by the National Testing Agency and in the absence of any mala fides attributed to the OMR sheet produced before this Court, it has to be presumed that the said OMR Sheet is genuine and definitely, the benefit has to be given to the State. Hence, the mark statement issued by the second respondent cannot be said to be in bad faith or with malicious intent. Accordingly, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be acceded to.
7. With the above directions and observation, this writ petition is dismissed.
09.08.2024 RAP Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order : Yes / No Index: Yes/ No Note to Office : Issue order copy on or before i.e.,13.08.2024. To
1. The Secretary to Government, 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16102 of 2024 Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi.
2. National Testing Agency, (National Eligibility – cum – Entrance Test (UG) – 2024), 1st floor, NSIC – MDPP Building, Okla Industrial Estate Phase III, New Delhi – 110 020.
3. The Chairman, National Medical Commission, Satarkta Bhawan, G.P.O.Complex, Block A, INA, New Delhi – 110 023.
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16102 of 2024 RAP W.P.No.16102 of 2024 09.08.2024 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis