Neelam vs Union Of India

Heard Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Anmol Sharma, learned Central Government counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 1, Mr. P.R.Patankar, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 2, Mr. R.S.Marhas, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 3 as well as Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 4.

On 09.11.2022, this Court passed the following order:

“Heard Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2, Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 3 and Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 4.

None appears for respondent No. 1.

The petitioner, who appeared in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (UG) 2022, contends that she had obtained 551marks out of 720. But, subsequently, when she attempted to fill the counseling form on 19.10.2022, she came to learn that her marks have been changed, as a result of which, chances of her admission to desired colleges have been dwindled.

Mr. Patankar has produced the copy of scorecard of the petitioner which reveals that she has obtained 136 marks. He has also produced the calculation-sheet of the petitioner as well as OMR sheet of the petitioner.

A copy of the documents produced by Mr. Patankar is handed over by him to Mr. Kumar.

Mr. Patankar also submits that the scorecard (Annexure P/1) enclosed by the petitioner in the petition is not the scorecard issued by the respondent No. 2 and the same is a forged document.

Mr. Kumar prays for taking up this matter on 14.11.2022 in order to enable him to obtain instructions from the petitioner.

Prayer is allowed.

List this case on 14.11.2022, as a fresh case.”

Thereafter, the matter was posted on 14.11.2022 and on that date, the following order was passed:

“Heard Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Anmol Sharma, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for respondent No.1, Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2, Ms. Anubhuti Marhas, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.3 and Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No.4.

As the petitioner is disputing the copy of OMR sheet furnished by Mr. Patankar, he prays for taking up this matter on 18.11.2022 so as to enable him to produce the original OMR sheet.

List on 18.11.2022 as a fresh case.”

Today, Mr. Patankar has produced the original OMR sheet in a sealed cover. On opening the same, the OMR sheet was shown to Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, who, on going through the same, fairly submits that the OMR sheet produced today corresponds to the photocopy of the OMR sheet furnished earlier.

Mr. Patankar submits that the petitioner had attempted 144 questions out of 200 of which 56 were correct and 88 were wrong. He further submits that for one correct answer, four marks were awarded and for each wrong answer, one mark was deducted. Accordingly, the petitioner has secured 136 marks. Mr. Patankar reiterates his submission that Annexure P/1 document i.e. the score card produced by the petitioner at page 10 of the petition is ex-facie a forged document and therefore, the respondent No. 2 will take such steps as may be considered appropriate.

The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in the petition:

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly pleased to kindly call for the original records of the OMR sheet of the petitioner for the NEET-UG-2022 examination held on 17.07.2022.

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to kindly direct the respondent authorities to provide a duly authenticated copy of OMR sheet of the petitioner forthwith.

10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to kindly make any other order that may deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner from the respondents.”

Having regard to the prayers made, no further directions are called for and accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. The original OMR answer sheet produced by Mr. Patankar is returned back to him.