Dismissed

Dr. Jahnvi Vijay Daughter of Dr. Sandeep Vijay v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Oct 2020CW/1078/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by a NEET-PG 2020 candidate seeking cancellation of the examination, or in the alternative bonus marks and compensation, alleging defective computers and repeated technical failure at her test centre. The court found the examining body had followed its protocol, granted eleven minutes of additional time and discontinued the centre, and held the technical failure did not warrant cance

What the court decided

AI extract

Dr. Jahnvi Vijay Daughter of Dr. Sandeep Vijay Vs… — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1078/2020

¶3

Dr. Jahnvi Vijay Daughter Of Dr. Sandeep Vijay, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of 80/168, Patel Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur-302005.

¶7

Convener, Neet-Pg-Admission Board, 2020, National Board Of Examinations, Medical Enclave, Ansari Nagar, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110029.

¶8

Secretary, National Board Of Examinations, Medical Enclave, Ansari Nagar, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, New Delhi110029.

¶9

Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Medical And Health And Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110108.

¶10

Medical Council Of India Through Its Secretary, Pocket 14, Sector-8, Dwarka, New Delhi-110077.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Soni, Adv. (through Video Conferencing) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Angad Mirdha, Adv. Mr. Ajay Shukla, Adv. Ms. Manjeet Kaur, Adv. for respondent – UOI (through Video Conferencing)

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶14

Order

¶15

Reportable

¶16

Date of Reserve: 26th August, 2020 Date of Judgment : 8th October, 2020

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking a direction to cancel the National Eligibility cum Entrance

¶18

(2 of 19) [CW-1078/2020]

¶19

Test-PG Examination-2020 (for short “NEET-PG Examination”) by holding an enquiry with regard to defective computers provided at Arya College of Industrial Training and Vocational Courses Private Ltd., Kukas, Jaipur (Center Code-8204).

¶20

The petitioner, in alternate, has prayed to give bonus marks to her and to other similarly situated persons, whose computers did not work properly during the examination and further, exemplary compensation has also been claimed.

¶21

Brief facts, as pleaded in the writ petition, are that the petitioner, after passing her MBBS Examination in 2019, participated in NEET-PG Examination-2020, conducted by the National Board of Examinations (for short “the NBE”) and common entrance examination was held on 5^th January, 2020.The petitioner was allotted Roll No. 2066069033 having Application ID No. PG097566.

¶22

The petitioner was allotted her center at Arya College of Industrial Training and Vocational Courses Private Ltd., Kukas, Jaipur (Center Code-8204) at S.P. 41-B, RIICO Industrial Area, Kukas, Delhi Road, Jaipur.

¶23

The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that she was to report at the examination center at 1:30 PM and examination was to start at 3:30 PM having the duration of Three and a Half hours, i.e., from 3:30 PM to 7:00 PM.

¶24

The petitioner has pleaded that the examination started at 3:30 PM, as scheduled at the aforesaid center but around 3:50 PM, the computer, which was provided to the petitioner, got hanged due to technical error and her answers given on the computer were not displayed as such and the computer turned black.

¶25

(3 of 19)

¶26

[CW-1078/2020]

¶27

The petitioner has pleaded that she complained to invigilator, who in turn provided her a second computer around 4:00 PM and the petitioner again started solving the questions but surprisingly, just after 10-15 minutes, the screen of the second computer also turned black and the answers were omitted on the screen.

¶28

The petitioner has pleaded that the second computer, provided to her, was hanged as many as six times up to 5:30 PM and on a complaint made by the petitioner, she was shifted to another room around 5:45 PM.

¶29

The petitioner has pleaded that around 5:45 PM, she was shifted to another room where she started working again but there was a technical snag and as such, as many as nine times, the screen of the computer was blank.

¶30

The petitioner has pleaded that not only she had a problem with the functioning of the computer but there were other coexaminees also who found the same complaint in the computer. The petitioner has pleaded that her concentration in writing the examination was disturbed several times and as such, the petitioner was allowed to solve the questions till around 7:15 PM.

¶31

The petitioner has pleaded that since the answers of the questions, attempted by the petitioner automatically got erased on the screen of the computer and as such, One and Half hours was available to the petitioner for solving all 300 Objective Type Questions and the petitioner was able to answer only around 263 questions out of 300.

¶32

The petitioner has pleaded that there was a total chaos in the examination center, as defective computers were supplied to the petitioner and the other candidates and as such, the

¶33

(4 of 19)

¶34

[CW-1078/2020]

¶35

Authorities miserably failed to conduct the examination in a proper and fair manner.

¶36

The petitioner has pleaded that she reached home around 8:30 PM and complained her father, who immediately sent complaint through E-mail to the different Authorities, i.e., PMO, State CMO and helpline of NEET-2020. The petitioner has pleaded that complaint was also made on “Twitter” and when no heed was paid to the malfunctioning of the computers, the petitioner had to serve notice for demand of justice for either cancelling the examination in toto or holding re-examination of the students, at the allotted center to the petitioner and further, give bonus marks to her.

¶37

The petitioner has raised following grounds in the writ petition:-

¶38

(i) The inaction of the respondents, for not taking action on repeated complaints and reminders of the petitioner, deserves to be deprecated.

¶39

(ii) The common entrance examination for medical education is required to be conducted in a proper and systematic manner and if the defective computers were given to the candidates to write the examination, the same cannot be tenable in the eyes of law, as the candidate’s career is at stake for taking the degree of Post Graduation in Medical Science and as such, the illegal action of the respondents, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶40

(iii) The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again laid down that the Examining Body must conduct the examination in a fair manner by providing adequate facilities/instruments to the

¶41

(5 of 19)

¶42

[CW-1078/2020]

¶43

candidates and not doing so, results into mockery and injustice to the number of candidates.

¶44

(iv) The observers, who were appointed to conduct the examination had also prepared the report of malfunctioning of the computers but no action was taken and as such, there was ample proof to conclude that the examination was not conducted in fair a manner and it had resulted into violation of right of a candidate to write the examination.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Rajendra Kumar Soni has made following submissions:-

¶46

(a) The report of the observers, which has been supplied by the respondents, clearly depicts that the examination was not conducted in a fair manner and the allotted center did not have proper installation of computers and provided poor facilities to the students. The report further shows that the telecommunication system, i.e., Airtel was not working in proper manner and biometric machine installed at the center, was also not working.

¶47

(b) Learned counsel submitted that this Court must exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant relief to the petitioner in wake of irrefutable evidence available, regarding the examination not being conducted in fair manner. Learned counsel submitted that this Court has ample power to cancel the entire examination and re-examination of the NEET PG2020 can be ordered by this Court in the wake of material available before this Court.

¶48

(6 of 19)

¶49

[CW-1078/2020]

¶50

(c) Learned counsel submitted that merit of the candidate should not become a casuality and if the candidate has appeared in the competitive examination, malfunctioning of the computer or improper facilities provided to the candidate to write the examination, must not result into any prejudice to a meritorious candidate.

¶51

(d) Learned counsel submitted that if this Court is not inclined towards canceling the entire examination, at least, the petitioner deserves bonus marks and exemplary compensation. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, admittedly, was shifted from one desk/computer to another desk/computer and she was also shifted to another room and as such, the disturbance caused to the petitioner, has resulted into depriving her to write the examination, as per her preparation and merit.

¶52

The respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., the Convener, NEET-PGAdmission Board, New Delhi and the Secretory, National Board of Examinations, New Delhi have filed reply to the writ petition.

¶53

The respondents have pleaded that the examination was conducted on Computer Based platform at test centers of Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) Private Ltd.

¶54

The respondents pleaded that they analysed the Responses and Audit Logs of the candidate and found that full time was provided and utilized by the candidate including requisite time added to the original assessment duration, due to observed locking on the candidate’s machine.

¶55

The respondents have submitted that the exam started at 3:30:05 PM and ended at 7:11:17 PM. The additional time of 11

¶56

(7 of 19)

¶57

[CW-1078/2020]

¶58

minutes was added due to observed locking on candidate’s machine.

¶59

The respondents have pleaded that as verified from the Audit Log of the petitioner, no loss of the Candidate Responses was found. It is asserted that if due to any technical failure in the computer system, the examination of a candidate is interrupted, the same is resumed by providing alternative system and examination is continued further.

¶60

It is further asserted that any loss of time due to observed locking/failure of the system is compensated by providing additional timing, as per norms. It is asserted that the NBE had appointed appraisers, who confirmed in their report that mock test was conducted successfully on pre-test day, i.e., 4^th January, 2020 and an unexpected failure of system at test center on the test day, i.e., 5^th January, 2020, was attended, as per protocols.

¶61

The respondents have also asserted that since the additional time was granted to the petitioner and as such, there was no loss to the Candidate Responses.

¶62

This Court, while hearing the writ petition on 31^st January, 2020, had directed the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to file appraisal report of the Invigilators/Observers for perusal of this Court and an affidavit was sought from the respondents to the same effect.

¶63

The respondents have filed an additional affidavit and they have reiterated that full time was provided to the petitioner and the same was utilized by her including requisite time added to the original assessment duration, due to observed locking on the petitioner’s machine.

¶64

The respondents have asserted that the petitioner attempted 263 questions. The respondents have also asserted that the

¶65

(8 of 19)

¶66

[CW-1078/2020]

¶67

Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is followed in case of any issue with regard to candidate’s machine during examination. The procedure, which has been detailed out in the affidavit, is quoted hereunder for ready reference:

¶68

Case	Description of Failure	Action to be taken
1.	Disruption happens (e.g. Power Failure) during the exam time After the candidates have logged in (either for one or more candidates)	No action necessary. The timer will stop when the failure occurs and will resume when the failure is rectified. It is further certified that there was no time loss in allocated examination time due disruption/failure.
2.	Candidate machine is locked during the exam (e.g. Loss of connectivity with the Primary Server)	IT Manager in each exam room verifies and unlocks the candidates account and the timer starts from the same point where the candidate had left. It is further certified that there was no time loss in allocated examination time due to this locking.
3.	Candidate complains of any specific issues in the machine (e.g. screen flickering, mouse issue etc.)	On reporting of the issue, IT Manager/Invigilator verifies and locks the candidate machine. The candidate is shifted from their allocated seat to buffer seat in same or other lab during the examination. It is further certified that there was no time loss in allocated examination time due to this shifting.

¶69

Learned counsel Mr. Ajay Shukla, appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, submitted that as far as failure in the present case with regard to petitioner’s computer not working properly is concerned, it has been dealt with as per the case/category No. 3 for description of failure and action was also accordingly taken by permitting the petitioner to shift from the allotted seat to buffer seat in the same or other lab during the examination and further, there was no loss of time in the examination due to shifting of the petitioner.

¶70

(9 of 19)

¶71

[CW-1078/2020]

¶72

This Court, while hearing the petition on 3^rd July, 2020, had directed learned counsel Ms. Manjeet Kaur, who was appearing for the respondent No. 4- Union of India, to inform this Court as what action was taken by the respondent No. 4 with regard to examination conducted by the NBE.

¶73

The respondent No. 4- Union of India has filed an affidavit and submitted that the respondent No. 3 - National Board of Examinations was entrusted to conduct the entrance test for Post Medical Courses. The NBE is an autonomous organization conducting the NEET-PG Examination including paper settingvalidation of question bank and generation of question paper, syllabus of examination, examination centers, result generation, etc. independently. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submitted that they had no role in selection of centers and conducting of examination.

¶74

The respondent No. 4 has asserted that the representation received from the petitioner dated 12^th January, 2020 was taken care and immediately response was sought from the NBE.

¶75

The respondent No. 4 has asserted that NEET-PG Examination-2020 was conducted on 5^th January, 2020 at 542 centers across the country wherein 160888 candidates appeared and examination was conducted on a Computer Based platform at test centers of Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) Private Ltd.

¶76

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submitted that they got copy of the Log Reports from TCS, four sets of appraiser reports of the following officials:

¶77

(i) Dr. Dheeraj Saxena

¶78

(ii) Dr. Dilip Raj

¶79

(iii) Dr. Arvind Kumar Sharma

¶80

(10 of 19)

¶81

[CW-1078/2020]

¶82

(iv) Dr. Shiv Prakash Sharma

¶83

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has asserted that as per the report received from NBE, the officials, conducting pretest facility, had found the set-up in order, however, in the postexamination feedback, it was found that the set-up was not up to the mark, which includes the report of machine failure and in one case failure of machine of a single candidate at eight times. The team of the Doctors had recommended the facility to be below par and not to be used in any further examination center for conduct of such examination and accordingly, the NBE has discontinued the engagement of the concerned center as the examination center for future.

¶84

Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has asserted that the responses in Audit Logs of the petitioner show that exam started at 3:30:05 PM and ended at 7:11:17 PM and as such, the additional time of 11 minutes was added due to observed locking of the candidate’s machine.

¶85

Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has further asserted that due to machine failure, the petitioner was provided total 11 minutes of additional time and it included three minutes of time loss due to locking and change in computer terminal, as per the Audit Logs and additional eight minutes as compensatory time for question, which the petitioner was attempting just before the locking took place.

¶86

Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has placed on record the table of Audit Logs and extra time given to the petitioner and the same is reproduced hereunder :

¶87

[CW-1078/2020]

¶88

(11 of 19)

¶89

Roll No.	Exam Started	Locked	Total Time Provided	Time Loss (Locked and Restart)
PG097566	15:30:05	16:59:35	1:29:35
PG097566	17:00:27	17:14:45	0:14:18	0:00:52
PG097566	17:14:51	17:31:50	0:16:59	0:00:06
PG097566	17:32:39	17:40:45	0:08:06	0:00:49
PG097566	17:40:55	17:50:40	0:09:45	0:00:10
PG097566	17:50:49	17:54:45	0:03:56	0:00:09
PG097566	17:55:29	18:01:15	0:05:46	0:00:44
PG097566	18:01:37	19:11:17	1:09:40	0:00:22
			03:38:05	00:03:11

¶90

Learned counsel for the respondents Mr.Ajay Shukla and Ms.Manjeet Kaur have made following submissions : (1) The respondents are not guilty in any manner while conducting the examination.

¶91

(2) The respondents have sorted out technical problem, which occurred during the examination and as such, as per the protocol, additional time was given to the petitioner and no blame can be placed on the respondents on an account of a technical problem, which occurred and the same is not a man made or in the hands of the respondents.

¶92

(3) The respondents have followed the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and as such, the compliant raised by the petitioner was attended during the examination itself and as such, no grievance remained with the petitioner after she was allotted extra time.

¶93

(4) The respondents, considering the nature of problem after examining the matter in detail, have decided not to use Arya

¶94

(12 of 19)

¶95

[CW-1078/2020]

¶96

College of Industrial Training and Vocational Courses Private Ltd., Kukas, Jaipur as the examination center for future examination.

¶97

(5) The respondents have further sought assurance from the test conducting agency, i.e., Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) Private Ltd. that they will take all possible measures to minimize such incidences of technical failure of system during Computer Based test.

¶98

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Rajendra Kumar Soni has placed reliance on the following judgments :

¶99

(i) AIR 2012 SC 33963 (Asha Vs. Pt.BD Sharma University of Health Sciences & Ors.)

¶100

(ii) (2015) 6 SCC 573 (Tanvi Sarwal Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors.)

¶101

(iii) AIR 2020 SC 47 (S.Krishna Sradha Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.)

¶102

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully.

¶103

This Court is primarily concerned to consider the grievance raised by the petitioner with regard to conduct the examination in proper manner or not.

¶104

This Court is further required to consider any prejudice or loss caused to the petitioner due to malfunctioning of the computer while writing the examination.

¶105

This Court finds that duty is cast on the Authorities to provide adequate facilities and infrastructure to the examinees, who write their examination and further, finds that any student or for that matter any examinee, who appears in a qualifying test for any course, needs to be provided proper atmosphere and

¶106

(13 of 19)

¶107

[CW-1078/2020]

¶108

tranquility in order to give his/her best performance while attempting the questions.

¶109

This Court finds that any candidate/student, who writes the examination, needs proper functioning and availability of all the infrastructure to write his/her examination in a peaceful situation with full concentration. This Court finds that any disturbance in the examination, can have a disastrous result in performance of a candidate.

¶110

This Court finds that in the present time, online examinations, virtual hearing and virtual interviews have become the need of the day and the advancement of technology for writing examination through computer screen, is an accepted form of examination. The responsibility is more onerous on the examining body to provide hassle free facilities to all the candidates, who wish to write the examination.

¶111

This Court finds that the respondent NBE had assigned the task of conducting test to Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) Private Ltd. and they were required to follow all the measures to minimize the incidences of technical failure during Computer Based test. The respondents have placed on record that the Appraisers conducted mock test on pre-test day, i.e., 4^th January, 2020 and everything was found to be in order.

¶112

This Court finds that unexpected failure of system on 5^th January, 2020 was required to be attended as per protocol decided by NBE and the test conducting agency.

¶113

This Court finds that technical failure of Computer Based test had taken place and as such, the petitioner was shifted from one computer to another computer and at one point of time, she is alleged to have been shifted from one room to another room.

¶114

(14 of 19)

¶115

[CW-1078/2020]

¶116

The moot question before this Court is to consider the inconvenience and loss caused to the petitioner due to failure of system and whether she was provided adequate remedial measures during examination or not.

¶117

This Court finds that the petitioner has admittedly been given additional 11 minutes and there was also loss of three minutes due to locking and change of computer terminal and as such, the respondents have followed the protocol and as such, it cannot be said that they were guilty of not following the protocol or they were indifferent to the problem faced by the petitioner while writing the examination.

¶118

This Court has observed in earlier paras and made it clear that the student/examinee is required to be given adequate facility, however, if there has been technical failure in the system, the same should not result into any loss to the student and such failure needs to be attended in adequate manner.

¶119

This Court has to judge the reasonableness of the action, which the examining body was supposed to take while conducting the examination. There is no dispute on the proposition that the candidate/examinee has to write his/her examination in proper manner, however, if there is no intervention in a designed manner to create obstruction in writing the examination and proper measures are taken to rectify the mistake/irregularity, no bold proposition can be laid that in such an eventuality having taken place beyond human control, the same should result into cancellation of the entire examination.

¶120

This Court finds that the respondents have further taken a decision not to use the disputed center as test center for future assessment of NBE and further, the test conducting agency has

¶121

(15 of 19)

¶122

[CW-1078/2020]

¶123

been asked to give assurance to take all possible measures to minimize the incidences of technical failure of system during Computer Based test. These actions of the respondents do reflect that they are aware of the problem, which might occur in conducting the examination and as such, in order to have minimum kind of incidences, services of the test conducting body need to be upgraded and further, improvements are being sought from such agencies.

¶124

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that report of the Observers speaks volume of the irregularities being committed while conducting examination, this Court finds that the appraiser report had approved the pre-test day instructions in toto and while conducting the test, there was technical problem with computers and the students were facing difficulty of computer monitor as blurred or hanged and subsequently the students were shifted from one seat to another computer seat and in some cases, from one lab to another lab.

¶125

This Court, as observed in earlier paras, finds that the technical failure, if not attended in proper manner, may have serious repercussions, however, considering the facts of the present case, it cannot be inferred that the technical failure has resulted into such a situation where the entire examination was required to be redone. The compensatory measures, adopted by the respondents, did mitigate the situation, which had arisen due to technical failure.

¶126

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that merit should not be a casuality and meritorious candidate should not be deprived from a proper allotment of merit and seat in the examination, suffice it to say that in the examination where

¶127

(16 of 19)

¶128

[CW-1078/2020]

¶129

thousands of students/examinees appeared and if at given point of time, at particular center, if there has been a technical failure of a system, no presumption can be drawn that merit becomes a casuality or merit is ignored by the Authorities.

¶130

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the relief cannot be denied to the petitioner only on an account of examination being over or admissions being finalized and since the petitioner has approached this Court at the earliest available opportunity, this Court finds that the Apex Court has crystalized the right of a candidate to get relief in education matters in the case of S.Krishna Sradha Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (supra).

¶131

This Court considering the facts of the present case, where the petitioner has attempted questions in her examination paper and if she has secured particular ranking/merit position, as per the marks, she secured in competitive examination, it cannot be inferred that merit of the petitioner was determined at one point of time and she has been made to suffer by ignoring her claim to get the admission.

¶132

This Court is afraid to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would have scored more marks, had she attempted the questions without disturbance being created due to technical failure, and as such, she ought to be given bonus marks by supposing her above the candidates, who appeared in the same examination.

¶133

This Court does not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have acted in arbitrary manner to deprive the meritorious candidate to write the examination and to get proper assignment in merit. The idea

¶134

(17 of 19)

¶135

[CW-1078/2020]

¶136

of securing more marks is too far fetched and only on assumptions, this Court cannot draw any conclusion, to place the petitioner higher in the merit.

¶137

This Court is, however, constrained to observe that conducting of any examination needs to be done in a very meticulous and proper manner. The examinees/candidates should not be given any impression that lack of facility or proper arrangement may result into depriving them from their normal performance in the examination.

¶138

This Court also holds that the examining body has to ensure that the proper facility and infrastructure are in place for conducting examination and the authorities are also under duty to create hassle free situation, where a candidate is provided complete tranquility to appear in the examination.

¶139

As far as reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment in the case of Asha Vs. Pt.BD Sharma University of Health Sciences & Ors. (supra) is concerned, the Supreme Court, in the said case, was primarily concerned with the question of maintaining rule of merit for preference of courses/colleges for admissions in the medical courses. The petitioner in the said case, had obtained more marks and yet she was not given admission in MBBS course and as such, the petition was filed in the High Court.

¶140

The Apex Court framed following questions for consideration and the same are reproduced hereunder for ready reference :

¶141

“a) Is there any exception to the principle of strict adherence to the Rule of Merit for preference of courses and colleges regarding admission to such courses?

¶142

b) Whether the cut-off date of 30^th September of the relevant academic year is a date which admits any exception?

¶143

(18 of 19)

¶144

[CW-1078/2020]

¶145

c) What relief the courts can grant and to what extent they can mould it while ensuring adherence to the rule of merit, fairness and transparency in admission in terms of rules and regulations?

¶146

d) What issues need to be dealt with and finding returned by the court before passing orders which may be more equitable, but still in strict compliance with the frame-work of regulations and judgments of this court governing the subject?”

¶147

This Court finds that the principle, which has been laid down by the Apex Court is in respect of maintaining merit for the purpose of admission and relief, which can be granted to meritorious candidate, who approaches the Court without any delay.

¶148

This Court finds that as far as the present writ petition is concerned, petitioner’s right was not crystallized in any form of merit position assigned to her and it was only in respect of conducting the examination in a fair manner.

¶149

As far as the reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment in the case of Tanvi Sarwal Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors. (supra) is concerned, the Apex Court had found that there were large scale malpractices, like unfair means/cheating/leakage of question paper and as such, direction was given to conduct fresh examination.

¶150

This Court finds that in the present case, there has been no allegation of unfair means/cheating/leakage of question paper and the problem, alleged to be faced by the petitioner, was already rectified by the respondents while allotting extra time to the petitioner.

¶151

As far as the reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment in the case of S.Krishna Sradha Vs.

¶152

(19 of 19)

¶153

[CW-1078/2020]

¶154

The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (supra) is concerned, the Supreme Court has decided that meritorious candidate, for no fault of his/her, pursues his/her legal right expeditiously without delay, cannot be denied admission only because cut-off date has passed.

¶155

This Court finds that the dispute in this case is with regard to manner of conducting the examination by the respondents and as such, no merit was assigned to the petitioner, of which, violation has taken place on account of not conducting examination in a fair and proper manner.

¶156

The present case in hand is not in respect of granting admission to the petitioner after she has been declared meritorious and as such the judgments, cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, are of no assistance to him.

¶157

Accordingly, this Court does not find any error in the action of the respondents, hence, the present writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.

¶158

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶159

Preeti Asopa

Dr. Jahnvi Vijay Daughter of Dr. Sandeep Vijay v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dr. Jahnvi Vijay Daughter of Dr. Sandeep Vijay v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxmichand S/O Sh. Radharaman Vs the State of Raj.

Rajesh Kumar Yadav S/O Govind Ram Yadav Vs Department of Administrative Reforms and Coordination

Krishna Kumar Yadav S/O Gopal Lal Yadav Vs Department of Administrative Reforms and Coordination

M/S Sophiya Handicrafts Vs Bank of India

Sita Ram Son of Gopal Ram Vs Mukesh Kumar Son of Sultanram

Ramavtar Son of Ghaasi Lal Vs Prahlad Sharma Son of Gajanand Sharma