T.UDHAYKUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.T.Udhaykumar, being a Tamil medium student, appeared for the NEET(UG)-2022 examination conducted by the respondents for admission to the M.B.B.S. Degree course for the academic year 2022-23. His application number and roll number are 20410250158 and 4101310175 respectively. He was also allotted the examination centre, Chinmaya Vidyalaya at West Anna Nagar, Chennai and thereafter the examinations were also held on 17/7/2022.

(2.) Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner stated that the appellant, after appearing for the examination, duly answered all the answers and has performed fairly. Therefore, he was confident of getting good results. Finally the respondents had published the results of the NEET(UG)-2022 examination in its website along with the key answers for the questions. It is also brought to our notice that each question being answered would carry four marks and one mark will be deducted for each wrong attempt. But the appellant, without getting any negative mark, answered all the questions, except Question No.97 shown in Sec. -B. After reading repeatedly the Question No.97 with the key answers given therein, being very confident that the said question has been wrongly framed, in order to avoid negative mark, he chose not to make any attempt, because the key answers, namely, the four options given by the second respondent were not at all correct. Therefore, he has just left Question No.97 without answering the same. He was also under the bona fide impression that he would be granted the grace marks for the wrong Question No.97. Later on, the second respondent published the results of the NEET-2022 examination in their website on 7/9/2022 showing that the appellant has secured 92 marks out of 720 marks. On verification it was found that he was not granted the grace marks for the Question No.97. When the second respondent has fixed 93 marks as the cut off mark for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste category, it is his grievance that when the second respondent has framed Question No.97 wrongly, they are bound to award the four marks, as they have to be held responsible for framing the wrong question instead of the right Question. The appellant also, setting out his grievance, sent a representation on 8/9/2022 thru e-mail to the respondents, which did not evoke any response. Therefore, he was advised to file the writ petition.

(3.) When the matter was taken up, it was indicated by the other side counsel that only in a case where the candidate made an attempt to any one of the four key answers given to Question No.97, would be awarded the four marks. Therefore, to take instructions and also aggrieved by the said condition 3.2(b)(vi) of the bulletin, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, inadvertently, without taking leave/liberty of the Court to prosecute a fresh writ petition, withdrew the writ petition. The appellant also sent a representation thru e-mail on 29/9/2022. He also made a detailed representation to the respondents on 11/10/2022. Again finding no response, on the next day, he filed the second writ petition. But the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by holding that the writ petitioner, having failed to obtain leave/permission to prosecute a fresh writ petition, is not entitled to file the second writ petition for the same cause of action and for the same relief. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed.