Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bombay High Court

Ku. Ekta D/O. Jitendra Gupta vs The Union Of India, Thr. Directorate ... on 3 November, 2020

Author: R.K. Deshpande

Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande

0311wp2851.20                                                                      1/4

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                           WRIT PETITION NO.2851 OF 2020
           (Ku. Ekta d/o Jitendra Gupta vs. The Union of India and others)
______________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
                                 Shri M.P. Kariya, Advocate for petitioner.
                                 Smt. M.P. Munshi, Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2.
                                 Shri D.P. Thakare, Additional Government Pleader for
                                 respondent nos.4 and 5.
                                                            -------

                                               CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, C.J. AND
                                                       R.K. DESHPANDE, J.

                                               DATED :     NOVEMBER 3, 2020

                               P.C. :

The petitioner, aspiring for admission in the M.B.B.S. Course, had participated in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (hereafter "the NEET", for short). The answers of the candidates writing the NEET are assessed on Optical Mark Reader (OMR). Once the results were published, the petitioner found to her utter dismay that she was awarded marks much less than what she had expected after writing the examination. She, accordingly, called upon the respondents to re-evaluate/re-assess the answers written by her. No response having been received, the petitioner has approached this Court with the instant writ petition seeking, inter alia, the following relief :

"(a) call for record and direct the respondent no.1 NTA to produce original copy of O.M.R. sheet of the petitioner bearing Roll No.3111104279 before this Hon'ble Court.

(b) direct the respondent no.3 National Testing Agency, C-20, 1A/8, Sector-62, IITK, Outreach Centre, Noida-201 309 to evaluate the answer sheet i.e. O.M.R. sheet of petitioner bearing Roll No. 3111104279 manually or through software and declare the result of petitioner forthwith."

2) Our attention has been drawn to Clause 15.4 of the Information Bulletin pertaining to the NEET (UG)-2020. The same reads as follows :

"15.4 Re-checking/re-evaluation of answer sheets :

• The machine-gradable Answer Sheets are evaluated with extreme care and are repeatedly scrutinized.

• • There is no provision for re-checking/re- evaluation of the answer sheets. This is because of the following reasons :

i. The OMRs are machine gradable which are being evaluated through specific software impartial to all.

ii. The candidates are given an opportunity to make the representation on the OMR gradation of their OMR sheets and also given an opportunity to challenge the answer key in case of any doubt.

• No correspondence in this regard will be entertained."

3) Prior to participating in the NEET, the petitioner was fully aware that there is no scope for re-assessment/re-evaluation of the OMR answer sheets. In such view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be permitted to turn around and question the process of evaluation once the result is not palatable to her. Unless a provision for re-assessment/re- evaluation is traced to any rule/guideline, none can claim the same as a matter of right. We may profitably refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education vs. Ayan Das, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 242, in this regard.

4) It is also ascertained that the petitioner at no point of time exercised her right to obtain 0311wp2851.20 4/4 information by invoking the machinery envisaged in the Right to Information Act, 2005. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others, reported in (2011) 8 SCC 497, right of a candidate to receive the answer-sheet cannot be defeated by the provision in the Information Bulletin that no correspondence would be entertained. Unfortunately, the petitioner did not pursue such remedy provided by the said Act and does not even have the OMR answer sheet with her. Any palpable error or mistake that she could have pointed out is also not open to her now.

5) We, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No costs.

                 (R.K. DESHPANDE, J.)               (CHIEF JUSTICE)



                                                            Digitally signed
                                           Kamal            by Kamal Jeswani

                khj                        Jeswani          Date: 2020.11.04
                                                            10:59:41 +0530