NEET : Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Granting Grace Marks For Wrong Question
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a Madras High Court order granting an unsuccessful NEET candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste category four grace marks for a question in which wrong answers had been provided by the testing agency. Admittedly, the petitioner, who scored 92 marks against the cut-off of 93, did not attempt the particular question, fearing that he might get negative...
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a Madras High Court order granting an unsuccessful NEET candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste category four grace marks for a question in which wrong answers had been provided by the testing agency. Admittedly, the petitioner, who scored 92 marks against the cut-off of 93, did not attempt the particular question, fearing that he might get negative marks. However, in a relief to the aggrieved candidate whose appeal before the National Testing Agency was soundly rejected, a Bench of the High Court led by Acting Chief Justice T. Raja, in October, directed that he be granted the additional marks, therefore, enabling him to meet the prescribed cut-off. "The NTA, being instrumentality of the State, cannot refuse to award the four marks to the appellant who belongs to weaker section of society," noted the High Court Bench.
Challenging the HC direction, the National Testing Agency approached the Supreme Court. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the NTA, submitted before the apex court Bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli, assailed the High Court order on the ground that the petitioner did not attempt the question concerned. "If this is allowed, it will have a cascading effect," the Solicitor-General submitted.
The Bench pronounced, "The petitioner attempted two questions from Section B as against 10 questions, and as a matter of fact, did not attempt question no. 97 at all. Hence, prima facie, it is being submitted that he is not entitled to the benefit of grace marks as awarded by the High Court. Issue notice. Counter-affidavit to be filed in two weeks. Pending further orders, there shall be a stay of the impugned judgement of the High Court."
The counsel for the respondent requested that the candidate be allowed to participate in the counselling rounds. Disinclined to engraft an exception for the aggrieved petitioner, Chief Justice Chandrachud said, "How will we allow you to participate in the counselling? If they lower the cut-off, you can participate. If we allow you with 92 marks to appear in counselling, there are other students, who are also SC, OBC candidates, who must be allowed. This cannot be permitted."
Case Title
The National Testing Agency v. T. Udhaykumar & Ors. [SLP (C) No. 20361/2022]
Click Here To Read/Download Order