Ankita Sanjay Makasare v. National Testing Agency And ANR

SWAROOP SHARAD PHADKE SWAROOP SHARAD PHADKE Date: 2021.11.22 19:51:00 +0530 Kanchan P Dhuri 1 / 6 WP-7439-2021__22.11.21.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7439 OF 2021 Ankita Sanjay Makasare ...

Petitioner

Versus

National Testing Agency and another ...

Respondents .........

Ms. Pooja Thorat for the Petitioner.

Mr. M.M. Padale, AGP for the State.

Mr. D.P. Singh alongwith Mr. Rui Rodrigues for Respondent No.2. .........

CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA AND SURENDRA P. TAVADE, JJ.

DATED : NOVEMBER 1, 2021.

(Vacation Court) P.C. :- 1.

The Petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition seeking the following relief : "(a) call for the relevant records and proceeding from the office of the Respondent Authorities and after going into the legality, validity and propriety of the same direct the Respondent No.1 National Testing Agency to produce the original answer sheet before this Hon'ble Court with further directions that Petitioner's result should be assessed as per original answer sheet written by her and not scanned copy of the same. "

2.

The Petitioner has stated that she passed her SSC Examination from the Maharashtra State Board with 91% and her HSC Examination in March 2020 by securing 80%, in spite of suffering from typhoid at the time of the examination. The Petitioner has stated that the National Eligibility Cum Examination Test ('NEET')

Kanchan P Dhuri 2 / 6 WP-7439-2021__22.11.21.odt 2020 was held somewhere in September 2020. The Petitioner appeared for the same. However, due to the pandemic she was not much prepared and decided to reappear for NEET 2021.

3.

Respondent No.1 - National Testing Agency is established since 2019 by the Ministry of Human Resources Development (now known as Ministry of Education MoE) with the approval of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Respondent No.2 is the Union of India through its Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. 4.

As stated earlier, the Petitioner reappeared for NEET 2021 on 12th September, 2021. According to the Petitioner, since the question paper is allowed to be retained by the students, the Petitioner had made markings on her question paper of all the answers she had opted for when answering the said question paper, so that she could assess its correctness after the examination was over. According to her after verifying the answers she was confident that she would secure a score of 615 out of 720. 5.

As per the Rules of the Respondent No.1 - National Testing Agency, the scanned answer sheet of the Petitioner was displayed on 15th October, 2021. Though the scanned answer sheet bears in her own handwriting, her roll number, test booklet number, her name, the names of her parents, a declaration signed by her and also her left thumb impression, she is insisting that the answers marked in the form of black dots on the scanned answer sheet are different from the ones marked by her when compared to the markings made by her in her question paper which she was allowed to

Kanchan P Dhuri 3 / 6 WP-7439-2021__22.11.21.odt retain and take back home.

6.

The Petitioner has filed a complaint stating that she is very confident that there is some mistake made in the scanning of the Optical Mark Recognition ('OMR') answer- sheet of the Petitioner because the options selected by the Petitioner are not displayed in the scanned copy of the OMR answer sheet and the same can be substantiated by her markings on the question paper. 7.

The Petitioner has relied on the decision of a Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 22513 of 2021 (L), wherein on a similar complaint made by the petitioner, an enquiry was directed to be instituted. 8.

The Advocates appearing for the Respondents submitted that a scanned copy of the OMR answer sheet is already before the Court since the same is annexed by the Petitioner as Exhibit "C" to the Petition. It is submitted that the Petitioner has admitted in the Petition itself that the scanned copy of the OMR answer sheet bears her signature. It is submitted that any student may come forward and submit that the answers marked by the student on the question sheet which is retained by the student does not match with the OMR answer sheet and therefore an enquiry be instituted. It is submitted that this is not possible since it would open flood gates whereby the students may raise grievances of similar nature and thereby delay the entire process of admission to various courses.

9.

We have gone through the Petition and annexures thereto. We have perused

Kanchan P Dhuri 4 / 6 WP-7439-2021__22.11.21.odt the scanned answer sheet of the Petitioner which she has annexed and marked as Exhibit 'C' to the Petition. We have also considered the submissions made by the Advocates for the parties. The scanned answer sheet is reproduced hereunder :

Kanchan P Dhuri 5 / 6 WP-7439-2021__22.11.21.odt 10.

The above scanned answer sheet bears the roll number of the Petitioner, her test booklet number, her name, the name of her parents, her left thumb impression, the signature of invigilators with time and the declaration which admittedly bears her signature and reads thus :

"DECLARATION BY CANDIDATE :

I declare that particulars and signature on this OMR Answer Sheet are mine and are same as in Attendance Sheet. I further declare that particulars filled in and signature as well as the circles darkened on this ORIGINAL Copy is same as in OFFICE Copy.

Sd/- 1.55pm Signature with time and running handwriting.

"

11.

With all the above admitted material on the scanned answer-sheet, we are not willing to accept that the answers on the scanned OMR answer-sheet are not correct only because the Petitioner states that the answers circled by her on the question paper retained by her has different answers. It cannot be ruled out that any student can fill up the test booklet (question paper) at home and after filling up the correct answers in the manner they desire, on the strength of such markings on the question paper/test booklet, come forward and contend that the answers on the scanned copy of the OMR are incorrect, since the answers on the answer paper retained by the student does not match with the answers/markings which the candidate has made/carried out on the test booklet. If this is allowed, surely we will be opening the flood gates for students to come forward and register their grievance that their answer-sheet does not bear the

Kanchan P Dhuri 6 / 6 WP-7439-2021__22.11.21.odt answers which they had marked on their test booklet/question paper, despite the fact that the scanned answer sheet bears in their own handwriting, the roll number, test booklet number, their name, the names of their parents, their signatures on the declaration, along with the timing, all of which are undisputed in this case by the Petitioner. In the case of Rithu Sibi (supra) relied upon by the Petitioner, the petitioner had alleged that her signature was manipulated, the roll number of the petitioner in the numerical did not tally with the bubbled portion, the name of the petitioner's mother and father was not written by the petitioner, the name of the petitioner's mother is Mini John C., however in the OMR Sheet it is shown as Mini Johna C.

, the writing in the OMR Sheet is not that of the petitioner. It is under such circumstances that the Learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court directed an enquiry/investigation in the matter. The facts in the present case are completely different as compared to the case of Rithu Sibi (supra). 12.

In view of the above, we are not inclined to grant the reliefs as sought by the Petitioner in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. The above Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. ( SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J. ) ( S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. )