LPA/782/2024 of NANDITA Vs NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND ORS

Signature Not Verified

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+LPA 782/2024 & C.M.No.46211/2024NANDITA

.....Appellant

Through:Petitioner in person.

versus

NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND ORS.....RespondentsThrough:Mr.Rupesh Kumar, Sr.Advocate withMs.Pankhuri Shrivastava, Advocatesfor R-1/NTAMs.Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSCwith Ms.Ananya Sikri, Advocate forUOI.Through:Mr.Rupesh Kumar, Sr.Advocate withMs.Pankhuri Shrivastava, Advocatesfor R-1/NTAMs.Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSCwith Ms.Ananya Sikri, Advocate forUOI.

Date of Decision: 13[th]August, 2024

CORAM:HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, ACJ: (ORAL)

1.Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 01[st]August,2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 8637/2024 whereby thelearned Single Judge dismissed the petition filed by the Appellant.

2.The Appellant who appears in person states that she appeared forNational Eligibility cum Entrance Test – Under Graduate Examination(“NEET-UG”), 2024 on 05[th]May, 2024. She states that Respondentno.1/National Testing Agency (“NTA”) issued provisional answer key for

Signature Not Verified

NEET-UG 2024 and vide public notice dated 29[th]May, 2024 invitedcandidates to challenge provisional answer key by paying non-refundablefees.

3.She states that the Appellant challenged the provisional answer keywith respect to five questions, but the Appellant has issues only withquestion no.104 and 149 of 'R4' Test Booklet of NEET (UG)-2024. Shestates that the results for NEET-UG 2024 were declared on 4[th]June, 2024wherein the Appellant secured 650 marks and an All India Rank of 30136.She states that on 04[th]June, 2024, the Appellant registered her grievance onCentralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System. She statesthat revised score card was issued by NTA on 26[th]July, 2024 whereinAppellant scored 645 marks and an All India Rank of 31559. She furtherstates that on 14[th]August, 2024, All India medical counseling for MBBSgovernment medical seats will be started by Respondent no.3 on the basis ofNEET score.

4.She states that both questions bearing Q.No. 104 and Q.No. 149 arewrong and the learned Single Judge has erroneously relied on NTA subjectexperts’ opinion even though NTA itself is party. She states that if there isa difference in the candidate’s version and the subject expert’s version, athird party’s opinion should be taken which is not party to the petition.

5.She relies upon the order of the Supreme Court passed in VanshikaYadav v. Union of India, W.P. (C) 335/2024 whereby an expert opinion was

sought from IIT Delhi.

6.This Court finds that the question which was referred to an ExpertCommittee for an opinion by the Apex Court in case of Vanshika Yadav(supra) was on account of NTA treating two options as correct answers to

Signature Not Verified

one question, and moreover, the same had been disputed by more than13000 students, which is not the case herein.

7.A Division Bench of this Court (of which Acting Chief JusticeManmohan was Member) in the case of Shivnath Tripathi v. RegistrarGeneral Delhi High Court & Anr., W.P. (C) 7346/2020 has held that thereis always presumption of correctness regarding the answer key and it maybe subject to judicial review only when it is “demonstrably wrong” i.e. itmust be such as no reasonable body of men well versed in the particularsubject would regard it as correct.

8.While examining such matters, the jurisdiction of this Court iscircumscribed by the law which is well-settled in this regard, in catena ofpronouncements by the Supreme Court. It is well-settled position of lawthat the scope of judicial adjudication and jurisdiction in such matters islimited. The Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur University v. SamirGupta (1983) 4 SCC 309 has held that“…the key answer should beassumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should notbe held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by process ofrationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, itmust be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particularsubject would regard as correct..”

9.In the present case, NTA had both the issues examined by subjectexperts consequent to the receipt of objections. This Court cannot sit as anappellate authority over the decision of the experts regarding the correctanswers to the questions. Further, just because NTA has consulted expertsdoes not mean that the said experts cease to be neutral or independentpersons.

LPA No. 782/2024

Signature Not Verified

10.Consequently, the present appeal being bereft of merit is dismissedalong with the pending application.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

AUGUST 13, 2024KA

LPA No. 782/2024