Bombay High Court
Avni Prakash vs National Testing Agency (Nta) And 3 Ors on 29 October, 2021
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, Abhay Ahuja
502-wpl21578-21.doc
vai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.21578 OF 2021
Avni Prakash ...Petitioner
V/s.
National Testing Agency & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr.Vaibhav Vidyarthi with Asim Vidyarthi for the Petitioner.
Mr.Rui A. Rodrigues for Respondent No.1.
Mr.Rui A. Rodrigues with Mr.Ajinkya J. Jaibhave for the Respondent
No.3.
Ms.P.H. Kantharia, Government Pleader with Ms.Jyoti Chavan, AGP
for the State - Respondent No.4.
Mr.Somnath Chinchkar, Deputy Centre Superintendent, Thakur
College of Engineering - Respondent No.2 present in Court.
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA &
ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
DATE : 29TH OCTOBER, 2021.
P.C. :-
1. The papers are allowed to be produced at 3.00 p.m.
2. By an order passed by this Court on 11 th October, 2021 recording that it was the case of the petitioner that she obtained disability certificate on 6th June, 2021. However, we find that the petitioner had obtained disability certificate not on 6 th June, 2021 but on 6th June, 2017 from Sion Hospital.
1/5
502-wpl21578-21.doc
3. In paragraph 3 of the said order, it is stated that the petitioner produced certificate dated 6th June, 2017 and 15th September, 2021 before the respondent no.2 college. We find that the petitioner had produced only one certificate dated 6 th June, 2017 and not the certificate dated 15th September, 2021 before the respondent no.2 college.
4. In the said order, we recorded the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 that if the petitioner produces the disability certificate from one of the centres recognized by the respondent no.1 referred in Appendix-VIII- B of the Information Bulletin, the case of the petitioner would be considered. Mr.Rodrigues, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 now states that there was mis-communication between the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.1 insofar as this statement is concerned. According to the respondent no.1, no such instructions were received to the learned counsel to be made before this Court on 11th October, 2021.
5. In view of the said statement made by learned counsel for respondent no.1, learned counsel for petitioner agreed to procure the certificate from one of the agency prescribed in Information Bulletin at Appendix-VIII-B within one week from the date of the said order.
6. In this backdrop, this Court directed the respondent no.1 2/5 502-wpl21578-21.doc to consider the certificate if obtained by the petitioner from one of the agency prescribed in Appendix-VIII-B within one week from the date of the petitioner producing such certificate and to communicate the decision that would be taken by the respondent no.1. We permitted the petitioner to implead Grant Medical College, J.J. Hospital in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the said college was one of the agency included in the said Appendix-VIII-B to issue the disability certificate. Now the case of the petitioner is that in the first instance, the petitioner was not required to obtain any such certificate from any agency prescribed in Appendix-VIII-B.
7. It is not in dispute that the certificate produced by the petitioner from Sion Hospital was not from one of the designated agency prescribed in Appendix-VIII-B. It is also not in dispute that even pursuant to the opportunity granted by this Court on 11 th October, 2021 to the petitioner to produce the certificate in terms of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has not produced the certificate from the said agency prescribed in Appendix-VIII-B even at this stage.
8. We are therefore not inclined to grant prayer clause (a) thereby allowing the petitioner to appear for the NEET Entrance Test by providing her with the compensatory time and all other 3/5 502-wpl21578-21.doc relaxations / benefits that she is claiming to be entitled to by virtue of her person with the purported disability status. We also do not propose to go into the alleged communication gap between the learned counsel and the respondent no.1 which is now sought to be brought on record by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 dated 21st October, 2021 sent by the Joint Director of the respondent no.1. The statement is taken on record and marked "X" for identification.
9. For the reasons recorded aforesaid, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner makes any representation to the respondent no.1, such representation shall be considered on its own merits within four weeks from the date of such representation.
10. At this stage, Mr.Rodrigues, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 invites our attention to the order dated 28th October, 2021 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.17027 of 2021 filed by the National Testing Agency Vs. Vaishnavi Vijay Bhopale & Ors. against the order dated 30 th September, 2021 in Writ Petition (L) No. 21578 of 2021 setting aside the order passed by this Court inter alia granting stay from declaring the result of the petitioner for NEET Entrance Examination. In view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 28 th October, 4/5 502-wpl21578-21.doc 2021, ad-interim relief granted on 30 th September, 2021 stands vacated.
11. The writ petition is dismissed subject to aforesaid directions. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (R.D. DHANUKA, J.) Digitally signed by VASANT VASANT ANANDRAO ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2021.10.30 IDHOL 16:24:30 +0530 5/5