Disposed

Vanukuri Abhiram Reddy v. The Director General

Telangana HC5 Sept 2024WP/16059/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition challenging the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET) 2024 results. The petitioner alleged questions were out-of-syllabus and answers were incorrect. The court held that the answer key has a presumption of correctness but directed the NTA to process a re-verification application filed with charges within two weeks before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondents to process the petitioner's application for re-verification/re-evaluation and communicate the decision within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Vanukuri Abhiram Reddy Vs The Director… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 16059 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

Vanukuri Abhiram Reddy, S/o Vanukuri Srinivasa Reddy, Aged 18 years, Occupation- Student, Rl/o H No 3-7-272, Street No '18A, Hyderguda, Attapur, Hyderabad - 500048.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

'1 . The Director General, National Testing Agency, First Floor, NSIC-MDBP Building, Okhla lndustrial Estate, New Delhi - 1 10020. ([email protected])

¶11

Union of lndia, Represented by the Secretary. Department of Education, Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 1 10001 .

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the^'l st Respondents inaction over the Petitioners Representation Dated 31-05-2024 wherein he has pointed out two anomalies in the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET) (Under Graduate) - 2024 Question Paper (1) question number 27 which is out-of-syllabus and (2) a wrong answer shown as correct answer for question number 147 (bit 4 instead of bit 3) in the Final Answer Key pertaining to the said Test and also inaction over the Petitioner's Revised Legal Notice Dated 16-06-2024 wherein he sought rectification of the marks awarded to him as 586 instead of 581 and revision of his overall rank in the merit list in the said Test, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to pass appropriate orders on the aforementtoned Representation and Revised Legal Notice submitted by the Petitioner.

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circunstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1st Respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the Petitioner's Representation Dated 3'l-05-2O24 and the Revised Legal Notice Dated 16i06/2024 as expeditiously as possible pending disposal of the main Writ Petition

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. POLALI VENKATESH

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy. SOLICITOR GEN. OF INOIA R1 TO R2

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶20

MIT PETITION NO.16O59 of 2024

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Writ Petition is hled seeking the following relief:

¶23

". . ..to issue^qn oppropriate Wit, Order or Direction more particularLg one in the nature of Wrtt ol Mandamus declaing tlrc l"t respond.ents inaction ouer the Petitioner's Representation dated 31.05.2024 uherein te has pointed out tuo anomalies in the National Ehgibilitg Cum Entrance Test (NEET)(Under Graduate) 2024 Question Poper;(l) question number 27 uhich is 'out-of sytlabus' and (2) a u)rong ansu.)er shou)n as correct ansluer for question number 147 (bit'4'instead of bi'3') in the Final Ansuer KeA pertaining to the said Test qnd also inaction ouer the Petitioner's Reuised l,egal Notice Dated 16.06.2024 tuherein he sought recttfication of the marks awarded to him as 586 instead of 581^qnd reuision of his ouerqll rqnk in the meit list in the sqid Test as illegal, arbitrary, disciminatory and unconstitutional and consequentlv direct th.e l"t respondent to poss appropriate orders on the aforementioned Representation and Reuised Legal Notice submitted bA the Petitioner...."

¶24

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.

¶25

The case of the petitioner is that he appeared for National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET) (Under Graduate) - 2024 conducted by respondent No. l-National Testing Agency (NTA) for admissions in undergraduate MBBS/BDS etc., courses on O5.O5.2O24 and has secured 581 marks. It is the further case of the petitioner that on cross-verification, he found that the respondents have not awarded/included marks for question Nos.27 ar,d 747 and therefore, he submitted a representation,

¶26

¶27

,& I^a

¶28

31.O5.2024 pointing out the said errors and for adrlition of five more marks, but ti11 date, he has not received any response from the rcsponden[s.

¶29

Mr. Rupesh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that similar issue has fell for consideration before the High Court of Delhi vide LpA No.782 of 2024 & CMA No.46211 of 2024, wherein the National Testing Agency (NTA) has constituted expert committee for examining the questions prepared and subsequently, the expert committee has submittcd a report stating that the questions preparcd by the respondents and the key answers are correct and there are no discrepancics in the questions and answers prepared by the respondents; duly taking note of the same, the High Court of Deihi has clismissed LPA No.782 of 2024 & CMA No.462i1 of 2024, dated 13.08.2024; aggrieved by the same, the petitioner therein filed SLP No.18O30 of 2024 on the frle of the Hon'ble Apex Cour1, and the same was dismissed confirming the order, dated 13.08.2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi in LPA No.782 of 2024 & CMA No.4621 7 of 2024.

¶30

Since it is stated that the expert committee appointed by NTA submitted a report stating that questions ald answer key prepared by the respondents are correct, there is always a

¶31

¶32

-.;---.:q '?' v'"./

¶33

¶34

presumption of correctness regarding the answer keys and it may be subject to judicial review only when it is demonstrably wrong.

¶35

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out any case to interfere with the results declared by the respondents. However, as it is stated that the petitioner has submitted an application duly paying charges for re_ verification/ re-valuation in terms of the paper publication issued by the NTA, the respondents are directed to examine the said application submitted by the petitioner and communicate the said decision thereon to the petitioner within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶36

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. There sha11 be no order as to costs.

¶37

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶38

SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTAN REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

To,

SE TION OF FICE R

The Dire.{or General, National Testing Agency, First Floor, NSIC_|VDBP Buitding, Okhta tndustriat Estate, trtew"Oeini _ i\oOio. ttgiiO;t ,l-i;i

¶43

Union of lndia, Represented by the secretary. Department of Education, Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 110001 .

¶44

One CC to SRt.POLAL| VENKATESH Advocate tOpUCl

¶45

One CC to SRt. GAD| PRAVEEN KUIVAR Dy. SOL|C|TOR GEN. OF INDIA Advocate [OpUC]

¶46

O A rrr

¶47

ONE SPARE COPY

¶48

TWO CD COPIES

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510912024

ORDER

WP.No.16059 of 2024

;1Hr- S 14 r4:
( !<br>t
(
!i
1
z
!E[ 20A
tl ta, t
\- FSnarrltsf,0

¶55

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶56

WITHOUT COSTS 1.\ T+ \r-y .^q1C,e$/2

Vanukuri Abhiram Reddy v. The Director General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vanukuri Abhiram Reddy v. The Director General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ikar Outdoor Advertising Vs The Union of India

Elishala Somaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Pathan Apser Hussen Vs Bureau of Immigration

Durga Harini alias Deepthi Vs The Union of India

A. Siva Lakshmi Devi Vs The Govt. of A.P.

Sri Ugamraj Nahar, Vs The State of Telangana