Delhi High Court - Orders
Ashish Kumar Thakur vs University Grants Commission And Ors on 12 October, 2022
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1763/2020
ASHISH KUMAR THAKUR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahul Dev and Mr. Atul Verma,
Advocates.
versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Damini Garg and Mr. Apoorv
Kurup, Advocates for R-1.
Ms. Manisha Singh, Advocate for
NTA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 12.10.2022
1. The present petition seeks setting aside of Petitioner's results in UGC- NET dated 31st December, 2019 declared by Respondent No. 2 - National Testing Agency ["NTA"]. The basis for said challenge is that responses in final answer key for three questions viz. question Nos. 17, 28 and 40 in Political Science paper (subject code- 02) of said examination, were incorrect.
2. At the outset, Ms. Manisha Singh, counsel for NTA, points out that under the scheme of examination, candidates are given an opportunity to raise objections to provisional answer key, which admittedly, Petitioner did not do.
3. The Division Bench of this Court in Salil Maheshwari v. the High Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:13.10.2022 19:51:15 Court of Delhi and Others has held that if a candidate does not avail the opportunity provided to raise challenge to an answer key, they are estopped from seeking relief at a belated stage, as sought in the present petition.1 It was only after declaration of results that Petitioner sent an e-mail representation on 07th January, 2020 to NTA in respect of afore-noted questions. In view of the decision of the Division Bench, and considering that Petitioner has not raised any challenge to concerned questions within the stipulated time period, the Court is not inclined to grant the relief.
4. Having said that, it must also be noted that these very questions were also subjected to challenges at the instance of other candidates, which were adequately considered by subject experts and response to question No. 28 was revised, benefit whereof, has already been extended to Petitioner in calculation of his final result. Insofar as remaining two questions - question Nos. 17 and 40 are concerned, no change in answer key was recommended by subject experts and thus, Court cannot intervene at this stage by determining correctness of concerned questions and quash his result for an examination held in 2019.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the Court does not find any merit in the petition.
SANJEEV NARULA, J OCTOBER 12, 2022 as 1 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4563.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:13.10.2022 19:51:15