Tripura High Court
Sri Indranil Majumder vs Union Of India And Others on 8 January, 2021
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.P. (C) No.720/2020
Sri Indranil Majumder
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union of India and others
.....Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Advocate.
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bidyut Majumder, Asstt. SG.
Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjee, GA.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
Order
08/01/2021.
Petitioner is a student. After passing standard XII examination, he appeared for common Entrance Test for MBBS and related courses conducted nationwide and referred to as NEET 2020. When the result was declared, he was shown to have secured 380 marks out of a total of 720. His case is that the agency conducting the examination had published the OMR sheets for all candidates on its official website from which he had downloaded his own OMR sheet and compared it with the correct answers for which the answer key was published by the respondents as per which, he ought to have been awarded 509 out of 720 marks. He conveyed this to Page 2 of 4 the respondents and since he did not receive any response he filed this petition. Along with the petition, the petitioner has produced a copy of what he claims is his OMR sheet downloaded from the official website of the National Testing Agency („NTA‟, for short), who was entrusted with the task of conducting of NEET, 2020 examination.
An affidavit-in-reply dated 10.12.2020 is filed by one Binod Kumar Sahu, Joint Director of NTA, Ministry of Education in which it is contended that the OMR sheet produced by the petitioner is not the correct answer sheet and in fact, the correct answer sheet carried only 150 attempted questions out of the total of 180 of which 106 were correct answers and 44 were incorrect answers. He was accordingly awarded 380 marks. The respondents have produced Annexure-R-1, a copy of the petitioner‟s OMR sheet which according to them was found from the official record. In the said affidavit, it is further stated that the NEET, 2020 examination was conducted in proper manner during which as many as 13,66,945 candidates across the country had appeared. It is stated that NTA has been established as an independent agency by the Ministry of Human Resources Development for the efficient conduct of such examinations. It is stated that after declaration of the result on 16.10.2020 on the official website of the NTA, a public notice was also issued on 17.10.2020 and all the results of the candidates were handed over to the Director General of Health Services for counseling and further admission Page 3 of 4 process. Along with this affidavit, the respondents have produced the copy of the petitioner‟s OMR answer sheet as well as a copy of the computation of marks of the petitioner culmination of which was as under:
"Attempted Not Attempted Correct Wrong Marks 150 30 106 44 380"
From the materials on record, it can be seen that an independent agency specially constituted for the purpose of efficient conduct of open examinations had carried out the mammoth task of taking tests of more than 13 lakhs of students across the country. The entire process was computerized and the OMR sheets and the results were published in a transparent manner. The examination programme also permitted the student who was dissatisfied with any of the parameters of testing to apply to the authority for retesting by paying requisite fees. The petitioner had not taken this route. It is not possible for this Court to ignore or overrule the averments made by a responsible officer on oath pointing out that the petitioner had attempted only 150 questions of which 106 for correct and 44 were incorrect answers. This is backed by a copy of the OMR sheet of the petitioner which forms part of the record of the respondent-authorities. I am not inclined to accept rather strong averments of the respondents that what the petitioner has produced by way of a copy of his OMR sheet is a fraud. Nevertheless, since the petitioner is unable to dislodge the contents of affidavit filed by the Joint director of NTA and along with which Page 4 of 4 affidavit a copy of the petitioner‟s answer sheet and compilation of marks are also produced, petition will have to be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to an order passed by the Supreme Court in case of Mukan Sabharwal & ors. vs National Testing Agency & anr. [Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s).1255/2020]. However, in this case, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution but left it open for the student to approach NTA for accessing the original OMR sheets. When such a responsible body has carried out the task of conducting examination of such large number of students across the country, which entire process is computerized, I am not inclined to call for the OMR sheets without strong reasons being made out.
Petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(AKIL KURESHI), CJ sima