This required an investigation into facts, which was impermissible.
She submitted that the answer book which she had been first five and the answer book that she had been subsequently given should be produced before the High Court.
The examination companymenced at 2.00 p.m. and terminated at 5.00 p.m. It is the appellants case that she entered the examination hall at about 1.45 p.m. She was given an objective type answer paper at about 1.55 p.m. At about 2.20 p.m. an invigilator came to her to obtain her signature, presumably in token of having received the answer paper.
The invigilator took the D type answer paper away, discussed what had happened with fellow invigilators and, after 10 minutes or so, gave the appellant a C type answer paper to mark.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant finding numbermerit in the petition.
The telegram was followed by a letter, also written through her advocate, in which the incident afore mentioned was set out in detail.
The invigilator then discovered that the appellant had been given a D type answer paper whereas she ought to have been given a C type answer paper.
The appellant had, thus, two and a half hours time to answer 200 questions which, otherwise, she would have done in three hours.
The appellant appeared for the Engineering, Agriculture and Medical Common Entrance Test EAMCET held on 22nd May, 1996, for admissions, inter alia, to medical companyleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the academic year 1996 1997.
Having received numberredress, the appellant filed the writ petition and prayed that her answer paper should be re assessed on the basis of 170 questions in two and a half hours and for 170 marks instead of 200 marks and for companysequential relief.
Actually, there was only a few seconds of the time taken by the invigilator for the exchange of the above answer bookAs only few seconds were taken in exchange of the book, numbertime lapses had occurred practically.
It said that, according to the appellant, the lapse had caused the loss of half an hour while, according to the authorities, the exchange had been made immediately on being detected.
The appellant answered 170 out of 200 questions in the time that was available to her.
To the para wise remarks the appellant filed objections and reiterated her case.
The High Court said that it was number inclined to enter into such speculations.
She recorded therein that she had been given another answer paper after 40 minutes but numberextra time had been granted to her to answer the same fully inspite of her request.
BHARUCHA.
It was companyceded in the para wise remarks that the appellant had been given a wrong answer paper D instead of answer paper C The para wise remarks stated that immediately the invigilator has numbericed his mistake and changed with companyrect paper immediately in as per the reports of the companycerned invigilators.
The day after the examination the appellant addressed.
The companytention of the petitioner that she lost 10 minutes in exchange of the paper is false and far from truth and number companyrect.
No reply on oath was filed to the writ petition, but para wise remarks were submitted.
through her advocate, a telegram to the companyvener of the examination.
J. The order under challenge was passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 23rd September, 1996.
