Allowed

Parth Treivedi and Anr. v. U O I and Ors.

Rajasthan HC9 Feb 2017CW/20987/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the High Power Committee's decision to exclude English paper marks in the 2013 National Talent Search Examination. Holding that the rule could not be changed in the midst of the exam, the court directed a fresh merit determination.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; directed to determine merit of petitioners afresh by notionally adding English paper marks for all candidates; compliance within three months.

Parth Treivedi and Anr. Vs U O I and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 20987/2013

¶3

Parth Treivedi, Resident of 114, Jaichamunda Colony, Bandhu, Nagar, Sikar Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan), being minor through his Legal Guardian Shri Vipin Chandra Trivedi, aged about 44 years, S/o Shri Mohan Lal Trevedi,.

¶4

Subham Gupta, Resident of 105/116, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) being minor through his Legal Guardian Shri Ramesh Gupta, aged about 47 years, S/o Shri Durga Prasad.

¶5

Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union of India through its Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy, Ministry of HRD, government of India, New Delhi.

¶8

National Council of Education Research and Training through Director, Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi-110016.

¶9

Head, Education Survey Division, National Council of Education Research and Training, Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi-110016.

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Sharma

¶12

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

Judgment

09/02/2017

(2 of 4)

[CW-20987/2013]

With consent of the parties, writ petition has been heard finally.

¶19

It is a case where respondents conducted National Talent Search Examination in 2013 ( “NTSE” ). The petitioners appeared in the NTSE along with others. The answer key of different paper was uploaded on the website by the respondents followed by result. The petitioners were shocked to know that marks of English Paper have not been added while determining merit position. In the General Instructions at Annexure-1, no direction exists for elimination of English Paper or marks secured therein. The respondents eliminated marks of English paper at their own whims. The petitioners were deprived to get marks in the aforesaid subject for determination of merit. The action of the respondents is thus illegal and otherwise they cannot change rule of game in the midst. The argument aforesaid is supported by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K.Manjushree Vs. State of A.P., reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512 .

¶20

Learned counsel for respondents submits that after National Talent Search Examination-2013, answer key was uploaded on the website. The matter was then referred to the High Power Committee to make scrutiny of the questions and its answers. The recommendation was made to eliminate the marks of English Paper apart from 11 questions of other paper. In pursuance of the said recommendation, marks towards English Papers were not counted for determination of merit. In view of above, this court may not cause interference in the matter. It is moreso when those, who were selected, have already taken the due benefit thus

¶21

(3 of 4)

¶22

[CW-20987/2013]

¶23

settled position may not be unsettled.

¶24

I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶25

It is not in dispute that while General Instructions were issued for National Talent Search Examination, there was no direction or provision to eliminate the marks of English Paper. The English Paper was to be taken along with others for adjudging overall performance of the candidates. It is also not in dispute that marks of English paper are being counted in past for determination of merit. In view of above, the committee had no authority to recommend elimination of marks of English paper for determination of merit. The rule of game cannot otherwise be changed in the midst in view of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K.Manjushree (supra).

¶26

A candidate would appear in the NTSE by preparing himself in all the papers for which he is subjected to and after the NTSE, if any of the paper and marks thereupon is eliminated, students preparing more on the paper so eliminated would be deprived to get merit position. In view of above, action of the respondents to eliminate marks of English Paper cannot be said to be legal and proper. They should not have changed rule of game in the midst and in the present case, even after taking National Talent Search Examination.

¶27

The writ petition is thus allowed with a direction to the respondents to determine the merit of the petitioners afresh after taking into consideration the marks of English paper apart from other papers. If they find placed in the merit by comparing their

¶28

(4 of 4)

¶29

[CW-20987/2013]

¶30

position with others who have been selected and extended benefit then petitioners would also be entitled for the benefit. To assess merit position of the petitioners with others, it would be after awarding marks of English Paper notionally to the selected candidates also and then total marks of the petitioners vis a vis those who have been selected would be compared. In case, petitioners get more marks than the candidates getting benefit of National Talent Search Examination then petitioners would also be entitled to the same benefit. The compliance of the order be made within three months.

¶31

(M.N. BHANDARI)J.

¶32

FRBOHRA

Parth Treivedi and Anr. v. U O I and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parth Treivedi and Anr. v. U O I and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganpat Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Kamrudeen @ Kamar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Amar Chand Saini Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Smt Geeta Devi and Others Vs Sharwan Singh and Others

Murari Lal Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt Santosh Devi and Others Vs Vikram Singh and Others