AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subject,Original Score,Fabricated Score
Physics,78.9217920,98.9217920
Chemistry,10.4721474,99..4721474
Mathematics,65.5215020,98.5215020
Total,51.8105888,98.8105888
The NTA has also annexed, alongwith its counter affidavit, a report of the National Informatics Centre [“NICâ€], which provides technical",,
support to the NTA. The NIC report dated 27.09.2020 states as follows: -,,
“TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN,,
Subject: JEE (Main) 2020 - Candidate's Application,,
Number: 200310189671- reg.,,
The National Informatics Centre (NIC) is providing Technical Support to National Testing Agency (NTA) for the JEE (Main)-2020. Based,,
on result data and cut-off received form NTA, NIC published Score Card of January and April/September 2020 on JEE(Main) portal.",,
As per the record available in database server, the Score Card of the Candidate (having Application Number: 200310189671, Name:",,
GAURAV JAISWAL) for January 2020 and April/September 2020 are enclosed (200310189671-Scoresheet-JAN20.pdfand 200310189671-,,
Scoresheet-SEP20.pdf).,,
As per the Score Card, the NTA Score obtained by the Candidate are 51.8105888 Percentile in January 2020 and 71.3367318 in April/",,
September 2020.,,
Details of the Audit Trail of Application Number: 200310189671areattachedforreference (200310189671-AuditTrail.pdf).,,
Yours sincerely,",,
Sd/-,,
(Mohd. Anwar Khan)â€,,
Thus, according to the NIC also, the scoresheet placed on record by the NTA is the correct scoresheet of the petitioner.",,
In addition to the above factual averments, Mr. Bansal, learned counsel for the NTA, also submits in the course of arguments that in the event the",,
petitioner had been placed in percentile 98.8105888 in the January 2020 session, he would have been assured of his eligibility for the JEE (Advance)",,
examination, and is very unlikely to have tried his luck in the September 2020 round of the JEE (Main). He also points out that, if the petitioner’s",,
case is accepted, he dropped from being placed above the 98th percentile in January 2020, to below the 72nd percentile in September 2020.",,
The petitioner, on the other hand, has placed on record an affidavit of his brother dated 24.09.2020, seeking to stand by the scoresheet annexed at",,
page 23 of the writ petition. The petitioner has also filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit filled by the NTA, in which this contention has been",,
reiterated.,,
In the rejoinder affidavit, a contention has also been raised to the effect that there is a discrepancy between the petitioner’s OMR responses",,
of the September 2020 session, as downloaded by the petitioner and the copies placed on record by the NTA. According to the petitioner, this shows",,
tampering of his result by NTA, and casts doubt on the credibility of the entire process.",,
Mr. Paras Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, also relies upon orders passed by this Court in petitions relating to the National Eligibility cum",,
Entrance Test (NEET), which is also conducted by NTA. The contention of Mr. Jain is that this Court is examining similar disputes regarding",,
tampering of OMR sheets in those writ petitions.,,
Mr. Bansal, on the other hand, submits that the cases regarding the JEE and NEET are materially different, inasmuch as NEET is an offline,",,
physical exam, where the candidates fill physical OMR sheets in hard copy, whereas JEE is an online, computer-based exam, where no physical",,
OMR sheets are filled in by the candidates. Mr. Bansal specifically states that although in certain petitions regarding NEET, this Court has called for",,
the original documents in order to establish the veracity of the contentions of the petitioners therein, there is no case pending with relation to the",,
veracity of the scoring in the JEE, being a computer-based exam.",,
Without getting into the merits raised in other petitions against NTA, I am of the view that in the present case, the contention regarding the",,
discrepancy in the OMR sheets is a red herring. The petitioner’s grievances in this regard relate to the September 2020 session, which is not the",,
subject matter of the present writ petition at all. There is no challenge in the petition to the September 2020 result declared by NTA. The grievances,,
of the petitioner are based only upon the result which he claims to have achieved in the January 2020 examination being wrongly reflected in the,,
combined scoresheet published by the NTA in September 2020. In these circumstances, the grievances of the petitioner regarding the OMR sheets of",,
the September 2020 examination are not germane to the determination of this petition.,,
As far as the January 2020 examination is concerned, the petitioner has clearly stated that he did not download his recorded responses of January",,
2020 as he was satisfied with his performance in that exam. The following averment in the rejoinder affidavit is unequivocal on this aspect: -,,
“8. That on seeing the result of the Part-1, JEE Main Examination, 2020 dated 17.01.2020 with percentile score of 98.8105888,",,
Petitioner like any prudent person did not download his recorded response of January, 2020 dated 17.01.2020 as he was satisfied with his",,
performance. However, for JEE Main Examination September, 2020 (Part-2), Petitioner downloaded his recorded response from the official",,
website of the Respondent and, now, after matching the a) JEE Main September, 2020 recorded response downloaded by Petitioner with b)",,
JEE Main September, 2020 recorded response furnished by the Respondent in its Short Affidavit before this Honâ€ble Court, Petitioner has",,
been astonished to observe that there is mis-match in the recorded response of the JEE Main Examination, September, 2020. This proves",,
that there has been an internal manipulation on the part of the Respondent, firstly with the recorded response and, thereafter, with the final",,
result dated 12.09.2020.â€,,
(Emphasis supplied),,
In these circumstances, it is impossible for the petitioner to dispute at this stage that the OMR sheets of January 2020 placed on record by NTA",,
are incorrect.,,
Significantly, in answer to the specific query of the Court, Mr. Jain submitted that the window for a candidate to download his/her OMR responses",,
from the NTA website is prior to the declaration of results. In these circumstances, it appears that the contention of the petitioner in the aforesaid",,
paragraph that he did not download his responses of January 2020 because he was satisfied with his score is, at the very least, misleading. Mr. Bansal",,
also confirms, upon instructions from the representative of the NTA, who is attending the video conference hearing, that the recorded responses of the",,
candidates can only be downloaded prior to the declaration of results. In these circumstances, the explanation offered by the petitioner for his failure",,
to download the January 2020 OMR responses is not worthy of acceptance.,,
This diversion having been dealt with, we return to the original issue regarding the genuineness and veracity of the January 2020 scoresheet",,
annexed by the petitioner at page 23 of the writ petition. The petitioner claims this is the scoresheet downloaded from the NTA website, and the",,
inconsistent September 2020 scoresheet is the result of a technical error; the NTA stands by the September 2020 scoresheet, and characterises the",,
document at page 23 as false and fabricated.,,
I am of the view that this is a matter entirely dependent on an adjudication of disputed questions of fact and unsuitable for determination in writ,,
proceedings. Mr. Jain was given time to consider this, and today cites paragraph 11 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Popatrao Vyankatrao",,
Patil vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2020 SCC Online SC 291 [C.A. No. 1600/2020, decided on 14.02.2020] to submit that the existence of",,
disputed questions of fact does not entirely preclude the jurisdiction of the writ court. In paragraph 11 of Popatrao, the Court relied upon ABL",,
International Ltd. & Anr. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 553, and held as follows:",,
“11. No doubt that, normally, when a petition involves disputed questions of fact and law, the High Court would be slow in entertaining",,
the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it is a rule of self-restraint and not a hard and fast rule. In any case,",,
this Court in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 553 has observed thus:,,
“19. Therefore, it is clear from the above enunciation of law that merely because one of the parties to the litigation raises a dispute in",,
regard to the facts of the case, the court entertaining such petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not always bound to relegate the",,
parties to a suit. In the above case of Gunwant Kaur [(1969) 3 SCC 769] this Court even went to the extent of holding that in a writ petition,",,
if the facts require, even oral evidence can be taken. This clearly shows that in an appropriate case, the writ court has the jurisdiction to",,
entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact and there is no absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition even if the same,,
arises out of a contractual obligation and/or involves some disputed questions of factâ€â€,,
I am afraid, learned counsel misses the point. Just because something can be done in an appropriate case does not mean it must be done in every",,
case â€" there are cases where the factual disputes raised may be appropriate for adjudication under Article 226, but that is an exceptional position",,
and not the general rule. This is clear enough from the opening sentence of paragraph 11 of Popatrao, cited by Mr. Jain, and placed beyond doubt by",,
the observations in paragraph 13 of the same judgment:,,
“13. It could thus be seen, that even if there are disputed questions of fact which fall for consideration but if they do not require",,
elaborate evidence to be adduced, the High Court is not precluded from entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.",,
However, such a plenary power has to be exercised by the High Court in exceptional circumstances. The High Court would be justified in",,
exercising such a power to the exclusion of other available remedies only when it finds that the action of the State or its instrumentality is,,
arbitrary and unreasonable and, as such, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In any case, in the present case, we find that",,
there are hardly any disputed questions of facts.â€,,
The present case does not, in my view, fall within the exception carved out by the Supreme Court. As detailed above, the NTA has certainly",,
raised a credible doubt as to the genuineness of the scoresheet at page 23 of the writ petition. The technical agency responsible, the NIC, has looked",,
into the matter and supported its stand. The NTA cannot be said, in these circumstances, to have acted unreasonably or arbitrarily. The questions of",,
forgery, fraud and tampering raised in present case would require elaborate evidence, and are not capable of summary adjudication under Article 226",,
of the Constitution.,,
For the reasons aforesaid, the present writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is however at liberty to take such other remedy as may be available",,
to him in law, if he is so advised.",,