Disposed

Megha.D.R. v. Union of India

Kerala HC17 Dec 2020WP(C)/20681/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the denial of authenticated documents proving she appeared in the NEET exam despite a wrong photograph on her admit card. The Court, finding no doubt about her identity based on affidavits and video evidence, disposed of the writ petition. It directed regularization of admission. No question of divorce, custody, or property was passed by the court below.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed. Petitioner directed to regularise admission accepting her claim of appearance in NEET exam.

Megha.D.R. Vs Union of India — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942 WP(C).No.20681 OF 2020(I)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

MEGHA.D.R. AGED 20 YEARS D/O.DEVASENAN.M., SINCHU NIVAS, CHENKAVILA, ADAIKKAKUZHI.P.O., KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT-629153.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶10

2 THE DIRECTOR (PROFESSIONAL EXAMINATIONS), CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (HEAD OFFICE), SHIKSHA KENDRA - 2, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110092.

¶11

3 THE PRINCIPAL, BHARATHIYA VIDYA BHAVAN SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, VATTIYOORKAVU, KODUNGANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695013.

¶12

4 THE PRINCIPAL, TIRUNELVELI MEDICAL COLLEGE, TIRUNELVELI, TIRUNELVELI.P.O., TAMIL NADU-627011.

¶13

BY SMT.SINDHUMOL.T.P., CGC BY SRI.NIRMAL S., SC, CBSE BY ADV. SRI.SANDEEP T.GEORGE BY ADV. SRI.S.RENJITH

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.20681 OF 2020(I)

¶16

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking

¶19

the following reliefs:

¶20

(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent No.2 to make available authenticated copies of documents depicting the identity of the petitioner and clarifying that the petitioner herself had attended the NEET examination held on 6^th May 2018 at Bharathiya Vidhya Bhavan Senior Secondary School, Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram based on the hall ticket admit card bearing registration No. 40139081 and Roll No.506800951 as sought for vide Ext.P9 request.

¶21

Or in the alternative

¶22

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent No.2 to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P9 application as expeditiously as possible or within the time frame to be stipulated by this Honourable Court.

¶23

¶24

(iii) To grant such other and further reliefs this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

¶25

2. It is stated that petitioner is presently

¶26

undergoing MBBS Course at Tirunelveli Medical College

¶27

based on her merit in the National Eligibility and

¶28

WP(C).No.20681 OF 2020(I)

¶29

¶30

Entrance Test [NEET] (UG) Examination conducted on 06.05.2018. It is stated that her examination centre for NEET (UG) was Bharathiya Vidya Bhavan Senior Secondary School, Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram. Unfortunately the photograph affixed in Ext.P1 admit card issued from NEET (UG) happened to be of another

¶31

person. Petitioner submits that it would have happened on account of an error committed by the local computer centre during the process of submission of application online, from where her application along with all requisite documents were uploaded but with a different photograph and with a signature of another candidate on it. The petitioner could notice this mistake only when she received the admit card with registration No.40139081 and Roll No.506800951, which contained her details. Petitioner reported in the centre-the 3^rd respondent Schools producing all the certificates and documents including Aadhar Card, Secondary School Leaving

¶32

WP(C).No.20681 OF 2020(I)

¶33

¶34

Certificate, Higher Secondary Course Certificate and a Bonafide Certificate issued from the Good Shepherd Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Marthandam etc. (Exts.P2 to P5). It is stated that petitioner was permitted to write the examination at the Centrein the 3^rd respondent School, on being convinced of the genuineness of the claim of petitioner and of the mistake committed. The petitioner came out successful in the test and got allotment in 4^th respondent College. On admission in the 4^th respondent College, she was asked to produce the relevant documents to prove that she herself had appeared for the Entrance Examination. It is stated that the petitioner and her father had submitted Ext.P8 jointly sworn affidavit furnishing the details relating to her appearance in the examination based on the admit card with a different photograph. It is further stated that the 4^th respondent had directed her to produce all the relevant documents submitted before the Examination

¶35

WP(C).No.20681 OF 2020(I)

¶36

¶37

Centre which according to them are necessary to send a report to the Department. Though the petitioner had approached the 3^rd respondent the documents were not made available to her. The writ petition was filed at this stage.

¶38

The 3^rd respondent filed a counter affidavit producing Ext.R3(a) undertaking furnished by the petitioner on 06.05.2018, at the time when she appeared in the examination. In Ext.R3(a) petitioner's photograph is given along with a declaration as to its correctness. The 3^rd respondent has also stated that she was allowed to appear in the examination on production of the admit card, photograph with her signature, Aadhar Card, Secondary School Leaving Certificate, etc. It is also stated that all the details and documents furnished by her were checked by the observers Dr.Gireesh Kumar and Dr.Vernold Vivin appointed by CBSE and they found

¶39

WP(C).No.20681 OF 2020(I)

¶40

¶41

that the details furnished by the petitioner were correct. Accordingly after getting an undertaking from the petitioner along with her photograph Ext.R3(a) she was allowed to write the examination. It is also stated that video recording was taken of all the candidates and thump impression of all the students participated in the exam were also taken and that they have already handed over all these to the CBSE authorities.

¶42

I heard Sri K.C. Santhosh kumar, the learned

¶43

counsel for the petitioner, learned CGC for 1^st respondent, Shri S.Nirmal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent and Shri. S. Renjith, learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶44

From the pleadings on record, there cannot

¶45

be any dispute over the fact that the photograph affixed in the admit card was of a different person

¶46

WP(C).No.20681 OF 2020(I)

¶47

¶48

and that it is the petitioner herself who appeared in the examination at the 3^rd respondent School against the roll no and other details given in the admit card. In the light of the documents furnished by the petitioner, which were verified and found correct by competent faculties under the 3^rd respondent, coupled with the videograph and thumb impression of petitioner recorded by 3^rd respondent and furnished to the 2^nd respondent, as stated in the counter affidavit of the 3^rd respondent, there cannot be any reason either for 2^nd respondent or the 4^th respondent to disbelieve the case of petitioner as to her appearance in the examination in the 3^rd respondent school. It is only appropriate for them to regularise the admission of petitioner accepting her version.

¶49

In the above circumstances, none of the respondents can have any doubt regarding the identity of the petitioner as to her appearance in the NEET

¶50

WP(C).No.20681 OF 2020(I)

¶51

¶52

(UG) Examination held on 06.05.2018 on the strength

¶53

of Ext.P1 admit card and on the results based on such appearance, for any purpose.

¶54

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE

WP(C).No.20681 OF 2020(I)

¶59

¶60

APPENDIX

¶61

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶62

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ROLL NUMBER 50680 NAME OF THE PETIT	HALL TICKET BEARING 0951 ISSUED IN THE IONER.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE 2521 4049 ISSUED RESPONDENT TO THE	ADHAR CARD NO.5019 BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE LEAVING CERTIFICA PETITIONER.	SECONDARY SCHOOL TE ISSUED TO THE
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE COURSE CERTIFICAT PETITIONER.	HIGHER SECONDARY E ISSUED TO THE
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 2.5.2018 IS SHEPHERD MATRIC H SCHOOL, MARTANDAM	BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE SUED FROM THE GOOD IGHER SECONDARY TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE 5.7.2018 ISSUED B MEDICAL COLLEGE, COURSE IN THE YEA	ADMISSION SLIP DATED Y THE TIRUNELVELI TIRUNELVELI FOR MBBS R 2018 ITSELF.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE FROM TIRUNELVELI THE PETITIONER.	IDENTITY CARD ISSUED MEDICAL COLLEGE TO
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 2 THE PETITIONER AN THE MEDICAL COLLE	JOINTLY SWORN .3.2020 SUBMITTED BY D HER FATHER BEFORE GE AUTHORITIES.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE 30.6.2020 SUBMITT BEFORE THE 2ND RE	REQUEST DATED ED BY THE PETITIONER SPONDENT.

¶63

WP(C).No.20681 OF 2020(I)

¶64

¶65

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE DISPATCH OF EXT.P9 REQUEST TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶66

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶67

EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING DATED 06.05.2018 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER.

Megha.D.R. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Megha.D.R. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.K.Gopalan Vs R.Girija I.A.S.

Unimoni Financial Services Ltd., Vs Idbi Bank Limited

Sangeetha R. Vs State Bank of India

Krishna Umesh Vs the Commissioner of Entrance Examination

C.S.Basheer Vs Kerala Gramin Bank

Omanakuttan Vs Taluk Supply Officer