Roshan Lal Saini v. Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors

ORDER %

04.09.2015 CM No.18400/2015 (for exemption^.

¶1Allowed,subjecttojustexceptions.

¶2TheCMstandsdisposedof. W.P.fC) No. 8545/2015& CM No.18399/2015(for stavV

¶3The petitioner,an examineein the All IndiaPre-MedicalTest (AIPMT)- 2015, resultwhereofwas decidedon I?"'August,2015, seeks a mandamusto the respondentsno.l to 3CentralBoard of SecondaryEducation(CBSE)to produce the answer sheet / OMR sheet ofthe petitionerand to re-evaluatethe same and remove any discrepancy found therein.

¶4The counsel for the respondentsno.l to 3 CBSE appearingon advance noticehas, today in Courthandedover the Notificationdated 8"' August,2015 of the respondentsno.l to 3CBSE (and whichis taken on record),declaring,(i) that the images of the OMR answersheets and responsesto the questionsmarked by the candidateswho had appearedfor AIPMT-2015and answerkey ofRe-testof AIPMT conducted on 25"" July, 2015 would be displayed on the AIPMT websiteon 10 and 11"^August,2015; (ii)thatthe candidateswouldbe entitledto W.P.(C)No. 8545/2015 page1 of2 challengethe same on 10^^ and 11«^ August, 2015; and, (iii) that the answerkey would be displayedon 12"^ and 13"^ August, 2015 and the candidateswould be entitledto challengethe same on the same dates. It is thus contendedthat the OMR answersheetshave alreadybeen giveninspectionofand an opportunityfor pointingout the errors / mistakesif any thereinhas already been given and the petitionerhavingnot availedofthe samewithinthe timepermittedtherefor,is not entitledtomaintainthe presentpetition.

¶5The counselfor the petitionerstatesthatwhen the resultitselfwas declared on l?""August,2015,no opportunitycouldhavebeenavailedofbeforethat.

¶6The counselfor the respondentsno.l to 3CBSE statesthat the inspection of OMR sheets and opportunityto point out the mistakeshad necessarilyto be givenpriorto the final declarationofresulton 17'*'August,2015.

¶7Faced therewith, the counsel for the petitionerstates that the petitioner being fromRajasthan,was not aware.

¶8The same cannotbea ground.

¶9Thereisno meritinthe petition. Dismissed.

¶10No costs. SEPTEMBER 04, 2015 pp .. W.P.(C) No. 8545/2015 RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J page 1 of2

27. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C)No.8545/2015&CM No.18399/2015(forstay). ROSHANLALSAINI Petitioner Through: Ms. KamlakshiSingh,Adv. versus CENTRALBOARDOF SECONDARYEDUCATION ^ Respondents Through: Mr. AmitBansal,Ms. ManishaSingh and Mr. Akhil Kulshrestha, Advs. for CBSE. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW