Allahabad High Court
Dr. Priyanka Verma vs National Board Of Examination In ... on 24 September, 2024
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66141-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 222 of 2024 Appellant :- Dr. Priyanka Verma Respondent :- National Board Of Examination In Medical Sciences Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Misra Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjeev Singh,Shashank Bhasin Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and Mr. Shashank Bhasin, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.
2. By means of this special appeal the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 17.09.2024 passed in Writ C No. 7912 of 2024.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant on 21.09.2024 and passed the following order:
"1. Heard Shri Sanjay Misra, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Sanjeev Singh holding brief of Shri Shashank Bhasin, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Shri Manish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
2. This appeal has been taken up on an urgency being mentioned by the appellant's counsel that the counseling has started and will take place in the ensuing week.
3. However, after arguing the matter at some length learned counsel for the appellant sought time to prepare the matter further.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed before us what he refers to as an audit log, according to which, the appellant herein did not attempt 8 questions out of 200 questions and attempted 192 questions which contradicts her claim that she in fact attempted 185 questions.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant wants to satisfy the Court on this issue.
6. List/ put up on 24.09.2024 as fresh.
7. The audit log is ordered to be kept in sealed cover."
4. Counsel for the appellant was required to satisfy us on the query mentioned therein, however, today again the same argument which was being raised earlier is being repeated. It is also stated that Software Audit Report should be requisitioned from the respondents, however, we asked the learned counsel for the appellant to satisfy us based on some opinion of an expert that Software Audit Report is different from the Audit Log produced by the respondents, but, he could not do so.
5. We asked Mr. Sanjeev Singh as to whether there is any Software Audit Report which is different from an Audit Log, he submitted, on the basis of instructions, that there is nothing like Software Audit Report there is only Audit Log which has been produced before this Court and the learned Single Judge.
6. In view of the aforesaid, considering the disputed question of facts we do not find it a fit case to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge,
7. The special appeal is dismissed.
[Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] Order Date :- 24.9.2024 Santosh/-