Delhi High Court - Orders
Aditya Mittal Through Father Vivek ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 August, 2022
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~95
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11668/2022
ADITYA MITTAL THROUGH FATHER VIVEK MITTAL
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Mr.
Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Mr. Nishant
Bishnoi, Mr. Gurpreet S. Parwanda
and Ms. Srishti Prabhakar, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Naginder Benipal, Senior Panel
Counsel with Mr. Abhijeet Vikram
Sing, Ms. Harithi Kambiri, Ms. Arpita
Rawat and Mr. Ankit Siwach,
Advocates for R-1.
Ms. Seema Dolo, Advocate with Ms.
Sarika Soam, Legal Consultant and
Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Chief
Technology Officer, Service Provider
for R-2/ NTA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 05.08.2022 CM APPL. 34692/2022(u/S 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the annexures)
1. Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Petitioner shall file legible and clearer copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 11668/2022 Page 1 of 8 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:05.08.2022 21:33:473. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 34691/2022 (under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 151 of the CPC seeking stay of declaration of result of admission)
4. In light of the urgency expressed by Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, counsel for the Petitioner, the application is taken up for disposal today itself.
5. When the matter was heard on its turn, and arguments were advanced regarding falsity/forgery of response submitted by Petitioner, the Court deemed it important to take the assistance of a technical person to understand the process of answer selection and the preparation of "audit login" reports which were being shown by the Respondent. Accordingly, the matter was passed over and heard at 6 p.m., where Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Chief Technology Officer, Service Provider, was heard through video conferencing mechanism.
Brief facts:
6. Petitioner, a candidate who appeared in the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) Mains 2022, has approached this Court, completely shocked with the discrepancies in the response sheets.
7. Respondent No. 2 - National Testing Agency (NTA) is an independent, autonomous, and self-sustained testing organization under the Ministry of Education (MoE), Government of India (GoI), which is tasked with conducting examinations to assess the competency of candidates for admission to higher education institutions. JEE (Mains) is one such examination, which serves as an eligibility test for JEE (Advanced), which is conducted for admission to IITs.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 11668/2022 Page 2 of 8 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:05.08.2022 21:33:478. JEE (Mains) 2022 comprises of two papers. We are concerned with Paper 1, which is conducted for admission to undergraduate engineering programs (B.E./B.Tech.) at NITs, IITs, other Centrally Funded Technical Institutions (CFTIs), Institutions/Universities funded/recognized by participating State Governments. The mode of examination of JEE (Mains) is a computer-based test (CBT) in multiple choice questions (MCQ) format with negative marking.
9. The marking scheme for MCQs is that for every correct answer or 'most appropriate' answer, +04 marks will be awarded; for every incorrect answer, (-1) mark will be given. For every question 'Unanswered' and 'Marked for Review', no marks will be given.
10. JEE (Mains) 2022 was conducted in two sessions for admissions in the next academic session. It is not mandatory for a candidate to appear in both sessions, however, if a candidate appears in more than one session, his/her best JEE (Mains) 2022 scores are to be considered for preparation of merit list/ranking. To answer a question, the candidates need to choose one option corresponding to the correct answer or the most appropriate answer.
11. Petitioner attempted JEE (Mains) Session 1, Shift 1 on 26th June, 2022 and Session 2, Shift 2 on 27th July, 2022.
12. Petitioner contends that he attempted 58 out of 75 questions. On 03rd August, 2022, NTA issued a provisional/claimed answer key [annexed as Annexure P-6], which lists the question IDs and the correct answer/option as per NTA. Candidates are invited to file their challenge to the same, last date for which is today.
13. On the same date, Petitioner downloaded his response sheet by putting in his login ID at 10:24 PM to cross check his answers. The response Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 11668/2022 Page 3 of 8 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:05.08.2022 21:33:47 sheet downloaded by him on 03rd August, 2022 has been annexed as Annexure P-7. Matching the said response sheet with the provisional answer key, the Petitioner claims that he would secure 212 marks, which, he claims, would place him in the top 2000 candidates.
14. Subsequently, on 04th August, 2022 at around 08:50 AM, in order to check errors that he may have committed inadvertently, Petitioner downloaded his response sheet once again, but was shocked to note multiple discrepancies, and claims that his answers/responses for 13 questions were changed.
15. It is urged that on account of this discrepancy, in terms of this response sheet downloaded on 4th August (Annexure P-8), Petitioner would secure only 168 marks, which would push his rank behind 50000 candidates.
16. Aggrieved by this discrepancy, Petitioner approached this Court seeking a direction to NTA to rectify the errors in his response sheet. As an interim relief, by way of the instant application, Petitioner seeks a stay on the declaration of the results by the Respondents, contending that in case results are declared without correcting the errors, the Petitioner's future and career would be gravely jeopardised.
17. Ms. Seema Dolo assisted by Ms. Sarika Soam, Legal Consultant for NTA, controverts the contentions of Petitioner and submits that the response sheet downloaded on 3rd August (Annexure P-7) relied upon by Petitioner does not match with the records of the Respondent, and therefore cannot be relied upon. She suggests that the same is a false document having no veracity. She also submits that the response sheets were uploaded on the NIC portal only once, on 3rd August, and have not been changed or replaced thereafter.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 11668/2022 Page 4 of 8 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:05.08.2022 21:33:4718. She further submits that as per the record available with NTA, the Petitioner's response sheet downloaded on 4th August (Annexure P-8) is the correct one. She also handed over a copy of the said response sheet across the board, which is taken on record.
Analysis:
19. At the outset, it is noted that the response sheet handed over by Ms. Dolo, is different from the response sheet downloaded on 3rd August (Annexure P-7). However, even as per the Petitioner's own admission, it is identical to the response sheet downloaded on 4th August (Annexure P-8).
20. For the sake of ready reference, a tabulation comparing the answers in the provisional/claimed answer key, and the three response sheets which have been placed on record is reproduced below:
Question As per Candidate's Response Candidate's Candidate's Number Answer Key Sheet as on 03rd Response Sheet as on Response Sheet as (Annexure August, 2022 as 04th August, 2022 as per NTA's records P-6) provided by Petitioner provided by (Annexure P-7) Petitioner (Annexure P-8) 401 D D C C 402 D D NOT ATTEMPTED NOT ATTEMPTED 403 A A NOT ATTEMPTED NOT ATTEMPTED 407 B B NOT ATTEMPTED NOT ATTEMPTED 410 A B A A 411 D D C C 412 D D B B 419 D D B B 438 A A C C 462 A A NOT ATTEMPTED NOT ATTEMPTED 464 C C NOT ATTEMPTED NOT ATTEMPTED 466 D C D D 474 A A D D
21. In the opinion of the Court, there is no prima facie reason for the Court to assume that Petitioner would have created a false document only in order to improve his rank in the exam. Conscious of the fact that any order by this Court would be passed only after hearing the Respondents, it is Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 11668/2022 Page 5 of 8 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:05.08.2022 21:33:47 unimaginable that the Petitioner would create false documents.
22. In view of the above, considering Petitioner's anxiety, the Court had directed the presence of the officers of the Respondent to understand the process as to how the aforesaid discrepancy had occurred.
23. Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Chief Technology Officer, Service Provider, who is an Engineer with the Agency that conducts the examination, joined the hearing through video conferencing and explained the process of conduct of the examination. Ms. Sarika Soam also supplemented his submissions. Both the experts have explained that the entire process of examination is conducted in an environment which is not susceptible to any data infringement or manipulation. Mr. Kumar explained that when a candidate appears for the examination, the computer system on which he/she gives the exam is selected on a random basis, and the screen of each candidate would display the questions in a different, randomised sequence. The response of the candidate to each question, the movement of his cursor on the screen, and the option selected, as well as changed (if any), etc. are all captured and stored electronically.
24. Respondent's records do not support the Petitioner's version. In order to satisfy whether his response sheet (that was handed over across the board by Ms. Dolo) is indeed based on electronic records maintained by the Respondents, the Court has not only heard the technical expert on this issue, but has also received the copies of the audit report in sealed cover, which records the response of the candidate. The same is taken on record.
25. Of the two documents handed over, one pertains to the entire question paper and the other is an extract thereof, pertaining to question IDs on which Petitioner has raised a dispute. The said documents mention each movement Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 11668/2022 Page 6 of 8 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:05.08.2022 21:33:47 of the Petitioner's cursor, the date and time stamp indicating the time spent by Petitioner on a question, and also the exact date and time stamp of when a response was punched in by the candidate for each question. The signed electronic record and the response sheet relied upon by Respondent (handed over across by the board by Ms. Dolo) matches with the response sheet downloaded on 4th August. In view whereof, the Court on a prima facie basis, does not find any ground to grant interim relief, as prayed for.
26. Just because the response sheet downloaded on 3rd August (AnnexureP-7) has some alleged discrepancy, cannot be the sole basis to withhold declaration of the result of JEE (Mains) 2022 for all registered candidates.
27. On this aspect, counsel for the Petitioner had also argued that in the event the Court is not inclined to stay the declaration of results due on 7th August, Respondents may be directed to declare Petitioner's result on the basis of the response sheet downloaded on 3rd August (Annexure P-7).
28. The above relief, if granted at this interim stage, would have the effect of giving the Petitioner a rank that is not supported by the NTA record. On that basis, any admission secured by the Petitioner would have a cascading effect.
29. Counsel for Petitioner also urged that in case no interim relief is granted, the petition would in fact become infructuous; even if he were to file and succeed in an appeal, it would not be of much avail to him once the result is declared.
30. Though this may be correct and this factor did weigh with the Court to consider granting of interim relief, however, in light of the documents and records presented by NTA, as well as the preliminary inquiry that the Court has conducted in respect thereof, no basis is found to dispute the NTA's Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 11668/2022 Page 7 of 8 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:05.08.2022 21:33:47 record. Petitioner's response sheet downloaded on 3rd August (Annexure P-
7) is not sufficient to outweigh the electronic records presented by Respondents.
31. As of now, the Respondents are directed to preserve the electronic records pertaining to the Petitioner in respect of his JEE Mains exam, and file the same before this Court forthwith, with a copy thereof to the Petitioner, who can then verify the same and give a response thereto, if required.
32. In light of the above, the Court finds no ground to grant any interim relief as prayed for
33. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
W.P.(C) 11668/2022
34. Issue notice to the Respondents. Mr. Naginder Benipal, Senior Panel Counsel, accepts notice for Respondent No. 1. Ms. Seema Dolo, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No. 2.
35. Counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.
36. Upon filing of process fee, issue notice to remaining Respondent, by all permissible modes, returnable on 12th September, 2022.
SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 5, 2022 d.negi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 11668/2022 Page 8 of 8 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:05.08.2022 21:33:47