Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mast. Gaurav Sonawane, a 17-year-old student, appeared for the JEE (Main) Session 1 examination conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA) on 27th January 2024. The examination was a computer-based test. On 6th February 2024, the NTA emailed the petitioner his response sheet, which indicated that he had attempted only 49 out of 75 questions. The petitioner immediately raised a grievance via email on 12th February 2024, stating that he had actually attempted 73 questions and that the response sheet was inaccurate. Despite his grievance, the results were declared on 14th February 2024, showing the petitioner's score at 86 percentile, which was insufficient to qualify for the JEE (Advance) examination. Aggrieved by the non-response of the NTA, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. The petitioner contended that he had attempted 73 questions and that the discrepancy in the response sheet led to an inaccurate representation of his performance, causing him to miss the cutoff for JEE (Advance). The NTA, represented by counsel, initially opposed the petition but agreed to verify the petitioner's claim by examining the log files and server records. The court, after hearing both sides, directed the NTA to produce the relevant records and verify the petitioner's claim within two weeks. If the claim was found correct, the NTA was to rectify the response sheet, revise the score, and consider the petitioner for JEE (Advance) eligibility. The court also directed the NTA to inform the petitioner of the outcome. The petition was disposed of with these directions.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Examination Discrepancy - The petitioner, a student, challenged the response sheet showing he attempted only 49 out of 75 questions in JEE (Main) 2024, whereas he claimed to have attempted 73 questions. The High Court held that the discrepancy raised a serious issue and directed NTA to verify the petitioner's claim by examining the log files and server records, and to rectify the response sheet if the claim was found correct. (Paras 1-10) B) Education Law - Examination Process - Duty of Testing Agency - JEE (Main) - The court observed that the NTA, as a testing agency, has a duty to ensure accuracy of the examination process. The court directed NTA to produce the log files and server records to verify the petitioner's claim, and if found correct, to revise the score and consider the petitioner for JEE (Advance) eligibility. (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the discrepancy between the number of questions attempted by the petitioner and the number recorded in the response sheet issued by the National Testing Agency (NTA) warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The court directed the NTA to produce the log files and server records of the petitioner's examination within two weeks, verify his claim of attempting 73 questions, and if found correct, rectify the response sheet, revise the score, and consider the petitioner for JEE (Advance) eligibility. The petition was disposed of with these directions.
Law Points
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Right to fair examination process
- Duty of testing agency to ensure accuracy of response sheets
- Power of High Court to issue writ for correction of manifest error
