Bombay High CourtVaishnavi Sandeep Maniyar vs Central Board Of Sec. Edu., A National ... on 15 June, 2018Author:Z.A. HaqBench:B.P. Dharmadhikari,Z.A.HaqJudgment                                             1                              wp2842.2018.odt




                  
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                               WRIT PETITION NO. 2842/2018


          Vaishnavi Sandeep Maniyar, 
          Age 18 years, Occu. Student, 
          C/o Sandeep Maniyar, 
          R/o 119, Wardhman Nagar, 
          Near Radha Krishna Mandir, 
          Nagpur- 440 008
                                                                           ....  PETITIONER

                                       //  VERSUS //

 1]       The Central Board of Secondary Education, 
          National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test Unit, 
          Shiksha Kendra, 2, Community Centre, 
          Preet Vihar, Delhi- 110 092, 
          Through its Secretary

 1a]      The District Collector, 
          Nagpur Collectorate, 
          Nagpur

          Respondent no. 1a added as per Court's
          Order dated 25/05/2018. 

 2]       Distt. Coordination for NEET Exam 2018, 
          The District Collector/Distt. Magistrate, 
          Nagpur Collectorate, Nagpur

          Respondent no. 2 deleted as per Court's 
          order dated 22/05/2018

 3]       Adarsh Sanskar Vidyalaya, 
          Centre in charge
          For Centre Examination No. 508501
          NEET UG-2018, 
          Hudkeshwar Police Station, Pipla Road, 
          Nagpur 440 037




::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2018                              ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2018 01:38:34 :::
  Judgment                                             2                              wp2842.2018.odt




 4]       Jayshree Shailesh Joge, 
          167, New Om Nagar, 
          Hudkeshwar, 
          Nagpur 440 037

          Respondent no. 4 added as party as per Court's
          Order dated 22/05/2018
                                                            .... RESPONDENT(S)
  ___________________________________________________________________
      Shri F.T. Mirza, Adv with Ms. M. Chandurkar, Adv for the petitioner 
                     Shri C.S. Kaptan, Senior Advocate a/b. 
                Shri P.S.Chauhan, Advocate for  respondent no. 1
                  Shri N.R. Patil, AGP for the respondent no. 1a
                       Shri A.S. Kilor, Advocate for the respondent no. 3 
  ___________________________________________________________________


                                 CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND
                                              Z.A.HAQ, JJ. 
                                   DATED  : 12/06/2018


                   Date of Reserving for judgment :- 11/06/2018
                   Date of Pronouncement of judgment:-15/06/2018


 ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER Z.A. HAQ, J.)1]               Heard. 



 2]               RULE. 



 3]               Considering   the   nature   of   controversy   and   as   the   advocatesappearing for the respective parties submit that the pleadings are complete, 

 the petition is taken up for final hearing.::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2018                              ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2018 01:38:34 :::Judgment                                             3                              wp2842.2018.odt




 4]               The petitioner appeared  for NEET UG-2018 examination heldon 06/05/2018 from 10:00 am to 1:00 pm. The petitioner claims that though 

 the time of examination started at 10:00 am and the candidates were entitled 

 to   start   writing   the   answer   papers   from   10:00   am,   the   respondent   no. 

 4/Invigilator supervising class room no. 39 where the petitioner was alloted 

 the   seat,   had   not   permitted   the   candidates   in   that   room   (about   24   in 

 number) to  start writing  the answer papers from 10:00  am and  those  24 

 candidates of class room no. 39 were permitted to start writing the answer 

 papers at about 10:30 am. According to the petitioner, as the examination 

 was of three hours, she carried impression that the candidates in class room 

 no.   39   (including   the   petitioner)   would   be   given   time   till   1:30   pm   to 

 complete   writing   of   the   answer   papers   however,   the   respondent   no. 

 4/Invigilator had asked the candidates of class room no. 39 to stop writing at 

 1:00 pm, and the answer sheets were taken.The petitioner claims that as she lost 30 precious minutes, the 

 respondent no. 1/Board be directed to conduct an enquiry on the complaint 

 of the petitioner that the  candidates  of class room no. 39 are not given three 

 hours time to write the papers. The petitioner has further prayed that the 

 respondent no. 1/Board be directed to grant appropriate proportionate marks 

 to the petitioner. Alternatively, it is prayed that the respondent no. 1/Board 

 be directed to conduct re-examination of the petitioner.::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2018                              ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2018 01:38:34 :::Judgment                                              4                              wp2842.2018.odt




 5]               The petition was circulated during Summer 2018 Vacations. Thelearned Vacation Judge passed an order on 08/05/2018 directing issuance of 

 notice   making   it   returnable   on   18/05/2018.   On   18/05/2018,   the   writ 

 petition was adjourned for 22/05/2018. On 22/05/2018, oral request made 

 on behalf of the petitioner to implead District Collector, Nagpur (District Co-

 ordinator for NEET UG-2018 Exam) was granted and the writ petition was 

 adjourned for 25/05/2018. The petition was listed on 25/05/2018 and all 

 the respondents were represented by their advocates. On 25/05/2018, one of 

 us   (Z.A.Haq,   J.)   was   the   Vacation   Judge.   Looking   to   the   nature   of 

 controversy,   it   transpired   that   an   enquiry   on   the   allegations   made   by   the 

 petitioner   was   necessary.     The   learned   Senior   Advocate   representing   the 

 respondent no. 1/Board expressed inability of the respondent no. 1/Board to 

 conduct an enquiry on the ground that work of finalizing and declaring of 

 result of HSSC was going on.Considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner 

 and   on   behalf   of   the   respondents,   an   order   was   passed   on   25/05/2018 

 directing   that   the   District   Collector/Additional   Collector/Deputy   Collector 

 shall conduct an enquiry and shall ascertain whether any other candidate 

 who   appeared   for   NEET   UG-2018   examination   at   the   respondent   no. 

 3/School (Center) and was in class room no. 39, had any complaint similar 

 to that of the petitioner. To facilitate the enquiry, the respondent no. 1/Board 

 was   directed   to   supply   to   the   District   Collector,   Nagpur   the   list   of   24 

 candidates who were in class room no. 39 at the respondent no. 3/School::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2018                               ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2018 01:38:34 :::Judgment                                                 5                               wp2842.2018.odt




 (Center). The respondent   no. 1/Board was directed to supply the contact 

 numbers of the 24 candidates who were alloted seats in class room no. 39. 

 The authority conducting the enquiry was directed to submit report to the 

 Court till 01/06/2018.Accordingly,   the   enquiry   is   conducted   by   the   Sub-Divisional 

 Officer, Nagpur City and report dated 31/05/2018 is submitted to the Court. 

 The copies of the enquiry report are given to the advocates for the respective 

 parties.   None of the respondent has disputed the enquiry report submitted 

 by the Sub-Divisional Officer by filing affidavit.6]               The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the 

 complaint made by the petitioner stands vindicated by the report submitted 

 by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer. Relying on the report of the Grievance 

 Redressal Committee appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P. (Civil) 

 No. 551/2018  (Disha Panchal and others vs. Union of India, the Secretary 

 and others), the learned  advocate for the petitioner has argued that such 

 incidents   affecting   the     candidates   are   not   uncommon   and   therefore,   the 

 Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   also   felt   it   necessary   to   appoint   a   committee 

 (Grievance Redressal Committee) to examine the grievance of the candidates 

 about   the   illegalities   or   irregularities   committed   while   conducting   the 

 examination.   Referring   to   para   no.   2   of     page   no.   8   of   the   report,   it   is  

 submitted   that   Grievance   Redressal   Committee   appointed   by   the   Hon'ble 

 Supreme Court has suggested that the  candidate/candidates who have been::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2018                                  ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2018 01:38:34 :::Judgment                                             6                              wp2842.2018.odt




 deprived of some time for which the candidate/candidates is/are entitled, the 

 candidate/candidates may be compensated by giving marks, adopting some 

 method   for   this   purpose.   Various   other   submissions,   in   the   nature   of 

 emotional   appeal   pointing   out   the   importance   of   the   NEET   UG,   2018 

 examination are made which in our view are not required to be reproduced 

 as everyone is aware about the importance of NEET UG-2018 examination. 



 7]               The   claim   of   the   petitioner   is   opposed   by   the   respondent 

 no.   1/Board,   the   respondent   no.   3/School   (Center)   and   the   respondent 

 no. 4/Invigilator. All these respondents have filed their affidavits stating that 

 the claim made by the petitioner about loss of 30 precious minutes because 

 of the alleged illegal act of the respondent no. 4/Invigilator, is not correct. 



 8]               The respondents have submitted that though the examination 

 was till 1:00 pm, the petitioner and her parents made complaint about loss of 

 time, at about 3:00 pm and there is no explanation for this delay in making 

 the   complaint.   The   respondents   have   explained   in   the   affidavits   the 

 chronology  to   substantiate  that  the  candidates  in  class room no.  39  were 

 asked   at   10:00   am   to   start   writing   the   answer   papers.   Much   is   argued, 

 relying on the fact that no other candidate had made any complaint about 

 loss of time as alleged by the petitioner.::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2018                              ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2018 01:38:34 :::Judgment                                               7                              wp2842.2018.odt




 9]               We   have   examined   the   affidavits   filed   on   behalf   of   therespondent   no.   1/Board,   the   respondent   no.   3/School   (Center)   and   the 

 respondent no. 4/Invigilator.We are not not only surprised but irked because of the attitude 

 of   the   respondent   no.   1/Board.   In   the   additional   affidavit   sworn   by   Dr. 

 Sanyam Bhardwaj - Director, Central Board of Secondary Education, Preet 

 Vihar,  Delhi on 09/06/2018, it is stated that the report of the Sub-Divisional 

 Officer that the candidates were permitted to start writing the answer papers 

 after about 20 minutes of the scheduled time of the examination, cannot be 

 accepted.   It   is   stated   in   the   affidavit   that   the   other   candidates   who   have 

 responded   in  the  enquiry  by the  Sub-Divisional  Officer  have  not specified 

 about the time of commencement of the examination. In para no. 17 of the 

 additional   affidavit,   it   is   stated   that   the   performance   of   some   of   the 

 candidates   who   have   responded   in   the   enquiry   at   the   NEET   UG-2018 

 examination   is   poor   and   their   future   is  not  at   stake   and   therefore   their 

 statements   do   not   carry   any   value.   Again,   the   all   time   excuse   of   being 

 overloaded with work, having responsibility of conducting the examination 

 involving   lacs   of   candidates,   is   putforth   to   oppose   the   prayers   of   the 

 petitioner. It is stated that if any relief is granted to the petitioner, it will open 

 pandora's box and lacs of petitions would be filed across the country.10]              Dr. Vandana S. Rokade, Principal of the respondent no. 3/School::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2018                                ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2018 01:38:34 :::Judgment                                              8                              wp2842.2018.odt(Center) has sworn the affidavit on behalf of the respondent no. 3/School. In 

 reply/affidavit  on  behalf   of   the  respondent   no.   3/School,   it   is   stated   that 

 three External Observers including the representative of the respondent no. 

 1/Board and five other supervisors were present at the examination center 

 (respondent   no.   3/School)   and   the   conducting   of   the   NEET   UG-2018 

 examination was videographed using two video cameras and this includes 

 video recording of class room no. 39. Again, demeaning statement is made in 

 para no. 11 of this reply/affidavit to the effect that video recording of class 

 room no. 39 shows that the petitioner was sitting idle and was not solving 

 the test booklet given to her.The   respondent  no.   4/Invigilator  has   filed   affidavit   sworn   on 

 25/05/2018   reiterating   the   stand   taken   by   the   respondent   no.   3/School 

 (Center).11]              After   examining   the   material   placed   on   record,   the   report 

 submitted   by   the   Sub-Divisional   Officer   and   considering   the   submissions 

 made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, we find that the 

 approach of the respondent no. 1/Board and the respondent no. 3/School 

 (Center) in the matter is completely unjustified. It is unfortunate that the 

 respondent  no.  1/Board  who  is custodian  of  the career and   the  future  of 

 candidates, has opposed the petition treating it as an adversarial litigation. 

 The   petitioner   has   not   made   any   complaint   against   the   respondent 

 no.   1/Board   and   had   only   requested   the   respondent   no.   1/Board   to::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2018                               ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2018 01:38:34 :::Judgment                                                 9                              wp2842.2018.odt




 compensate   her   for   the   loss   of   30   precious   minutes     because   of   the 

 illegality/irregularity committed by the respondent no. 4/Invigilator. We are 

 of the view that the respondent no. 1/Board should have on its own directed 

 the enquiry in the matter. The respondent no. 1/Board came out with the 

 defence that the petitioner had not made any complaint to it and has directly 

 approached this Court. The learned advocate for the petitioner has pointed 

 out that the petitioner had immediately sent complaint to the following :-1.                 The   examination-in-charge,   NEET     Exam   2018,   CBSE 

            Board Preet Vihar, New Delhi.2.                 The   District   Collector/District   Magistrate,   District   Co-ordinator for NEET Exam 2018, Nagpur Collectorate,  Nagpur.3.                 The   Police   Station   In-charge,   Hudkeshwar   Police 

            Station, Nagpur City, Nagpur.According  to  the petitioner, the  copies  of  the complaint  were 

 sent   to   the   Hon'ble   Prime   Minister   of   India,   Hon'ble   HRD   Minister, 

 Government of  India, Shri  Nitin Gadkari, MP, Lok Sabha, Nagpur and the 

 Hon'ble   Chief   Minister,   Government   of   Maharashtra.   We   find   that   the 

 respondent    no. 1/Board has shirked its obligation of taking cognizance of 

 the   complaint   made   by   the   petitioner.   Not   only   this,   the   respondent 

 no. 1/Board has tried to find out loopholes in the report submitted by the 

 Sub-Divisional Officer and this is done without any basis and without co-::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2018                                  ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2018 01:38:35 :::Judgment                                              10                              wp2842.2018.odt




 operating with the Sub-Divisional Officer in the enquiry. In the affidavit filed 

 on behalf of the respondent no. 3/School (Center), it is stated that the three 

 External   Observers   including   the   representative   of   the   respondent 

 no. 1/Board were present at the respondent no. 3/School (Center) at the 

 time of examination. It is not explained why the respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 

 have  not  requested   the  Sub-Divisional  Officer  to  record  the  statements   of 

 those three External Observers including the representative of the respondent 

 no. 1/Board. Though it is stated in para no. 11 of the affidavit filed on behalf 

 of the respondent no. 3/School (Center) that conducting of the NEET UG-

 2018 examination at the respondent no. 3/School (Center) is videographed 

 and it shows that the petitioner was sitting idle and was not solving the test 

 booklet given to her, the relevant details are not given. It is not stated in the 

 affidavit as to for how long the petitioner was found to be sitting idle.In para no. 4.9 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent 

 no.   4/Invigilator,   it   is   stated   that   the   NEET   UG-2018   examination   was 

 conducted in class room no. 39 uninterruptedly and in peaceful manner from 

 10:00 am to 1:00 pm and during this time, videography of the candidates 

 was done. Again, it is not explained by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 as to why 

 this video recording is not produced before the Sub-Divisional Officer at the 

 time of the enquiry conducted by him.12]              In   the   statement   of   Dr.   Vandana   S.   Rokde   recorded   in   the 

 enquiry, it is stated that Dr. Vandana S. Rokade alongwith the representative::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2018                                ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2018 01:38:35 :::Judgment                                             11                              wp2842.2018.odt




 of the respondent no. 1/Board visited all the class rooms of the respondent 

 no. 3/School (Center) between 10:15 am   and 10:45 am and at that time, 

 she had not received any complaint from any candidate. Again Dr. Vandana 

 S. Rokade has not pointed out at what time she visited class room no. 39. 

 Moreover, there was no occasion for the petitioner or any other candidate of 

 class room no. 39 to make complaint at the time of visit of Dr. Vandana S. 

 Rokade. The petitioner has stated that she carried an impression that as the 

 paper started at 10:30 am, the candidates would be given time till 1:30 pm. 



 13]              The respondent no. 4/Invigilator in her statement given in the 

 enquiry   before   the   Sub-Divisional   Officer   has   stated   that   after   the   OMR 

 sheets and question papers were distributed, instructions were given to the 

 candidates   at   10:00   am   to   start   writing   the   answer   papers.     Shri   Krunal 

 Gaikwad   who   was  deputed   in  class  room  no.  39   to  assist  the  respondent 

 no. 4/Invigilator, has stated in the enquiry before the Sub-Divisional Officer 

 that booklet box was opened at 9:50 am and the question papers and the 

 OMR sheets were distributed and then he had gone out of the class room to 

 bring ink pad for taking thumb impression of the candidates as required as 

 per   the   guidelines   issued   by   the   respondent   no.   1/Board.   Shri   Krunal 

 Gaikwad has not stated that the respondent no. 4/Invigilator had asked the 

 candidates at 10:00 am to start writing the answer papers.   The conclusions 

 of the Sub-Divisional Officer about loss of time are in consonance with the 

 factual   position   which   has   come   on   record   in   the   statement   of   Krunal::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2018                               ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2018 01:38:35 :::Judgment                                              12                              wp2842.2018.odt




 Gaikwad, that he had gone out of Room No.39 to get inkpad.  The petitioner 

 has claimed that the candidates in class room No.39 were not permitted to 

 start writing the answer paper till 10.30 a.m.   Considering the facts which 

 have come on record and as the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have not produced 

 the alleged video recording which they claimed to be available with them, 

 drawing   adverse   inference   against   the   respondents,   we   accept   the 

 contentions of the petitioner about the loss of time.14]              The learned advocate for the petitioner has pointed out from the 

 Information   Bulletin,   Chapter   no.   5   which   provides   for   instructions   to   be 

 followed  in the  examination hall.  Clause (o)  of  this Chapter no. 5  of  the 

 Information Bulletin laid down that the candidate was required to sign twice 

 on the attendance sheet at the specified place, first time immediately after 

 the commencement of the examination and second time while handing over 

 the answer sheet to the Invigilator. It provided that the candidates were also 

 required   to   put   their   thumb   impressions   at   the   place   provided   on   the 

 attendance sheet. The statement of Krunal shows that the ink pad was not 

 available in class room no. 39 and therefore he had gone out to get the ink  

 pad to get the finger impression of the candidates of class room no. 39. This 

 statement of fact is not disputed by anybody. We find that the learned Sub-

 Divisional   Officer   has   recorded   that   time   of   20   minutes   was   lost   by   the 

 candidates   of   class   room   no.   39.   It   appears   that   the   respondent   no. 

 4/Invigilator had not permitted the candidates of class room no. 39 to start::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2018                                ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2018 01:38:35 :::Judgment                                               13                              wp2842.2018.odt




 writing the answer papers till Krunal returned to class room no. 39 with the 

 ink pad and the finger impressions of the candidates were taken. 



 15]              We   are   conscious   that   while   exercising   the   extra-ordinary 

 jurisdiction underArticle 226of the Constitution of India, the Court should 

 be loathe in examining the factual position but in the present case, we feel it 

 necessary to examine the facts of the case and if it is not done perhaps, we 

 will be failing in our duty. The issue is not that lacs of candidates appear at 

 the examination and the Board has been discharging its obligation in the best 

 possible   manner.   The   issue   is   about   the   right   and   entitlement   of   the 

 petitioner and the career and future of the petitioner. If any wrong is done to 

 the   petitioner,   she   is   entitled   to   invoke   extra-ordinary   jurisdiction   of   this 

 Court to set right the wrong done to her in the present case. 



 16]              After assessing  the material on record  and  going through the 

 report   submitted   by   the   Sub-Divisional   Officer,   we   find   substance   in   the 

 complaint made by the petitioner. It being so, she has to be compensated.We accept the claim of the petitioner that she was given only 

 150 minutes instead of 180 minutes to write the answer paper. 



 17]              After hearing, we closed the matter, reserving the judgment. On 

 13/06/2018 at 4:30 pm., Shri F.T. Mirza, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2018                                 ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2018 01:38:35 :::Judgment                                                14                              wp2842.2018.odt




 A.S. Kilor, Advocate for the respondent no. 3 and Shri N.R. Patil, AGP for the 

 respondent no. 1a mentioned the matter and pointed out the judgment given 

 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in  W.P. (Civil) No. 551/2018 (Disha Panchal 

 and ors. vs. Union of India, The Secretary and ors.)  on 13/06/2018. The 

 learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be 

 entitled for additional proportionate marks as per the formula applied by the 

 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of  Disha Panchal and ors. (supra). It is 

 pointed out that the formula applied by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is given 

 in para no. 8 of the judgment. The learned advocate for the respondent no. 3 

 submitted that the petitioner cannot claim additional proportionate marks as 

 the   record   shows   that   the   petitioner   had   attempted   to   solve   only   two 

 questions of Physics and out of it, only one is right. It is submitted that the 

 petitioner attempted to solve the questions upto Serial No. 178 out of 180 

 and   this  shows  that  the  petitioner  has  not  suffered  because  of  loss  of   30 

 minutes as alleged by the petitioner.18]              Be   that   as   it   may,   we   find   that   the   formula   applied   by   the 

 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Disha Panchal and ors. as reflected in 

 para no. 8 of the judgment delivered in W.P.  (Civil) No. 551/2018 takes care 

 of all such contingencies. In our view, the interests of justice would be sub-

 served   by   directing   the   respondent   no.   1/Board   to   award   additional 

 proportionate marks to the petitioner by applying the formula given in para 

 no. 8 of the judgment delivered in W.P. (Civil) No. 551/2018.::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2018                                  ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2018 01:38:35 :::Judgment                                              15                              wp2842.2018.odt




 19]              As we have held that all the candidates who were alloted seatsin class room no. 39 at the respondent no. 3/School (Center) have suffered 

 loss of 30 minutes while writing the NEET-UG 2018 examination, we direct 

 the respondent no. 1/Board to give same benefit to all the candidates who 

 were   alloted     seats   in   class   room   no.   39   of   the   respondent   no.   3/School 

 (Center)  by  applying   the   formula   referred   in   para  no.   8   of   the  judgment 

 delivered in W.P. (Civil) No. 551/2018.20]              The   respondent   no.   1/Board   shall   undertake   the   exercise   till 

 22/06/2018   and   make   available   to   the   petitioner   and   other   concerned 

 candidates  the corrected mark sheets immediately.At this stage, the advocate for the petitioner submitted that the 

 last date to pay by challan is 18th June, 2018 and the mark sheets which 

 would be supplied till then will be taken into consideration in the admission 

 process.  It is prayed that the respondent No.1 Board be directed to complete 

 the exercise as per the directions given above till 17th June, 2018.  Paragraph 

 12(F) of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition 

 (Civil) No.551 of 2018  and other connected petitions, is pointed out and it is 

 submitted   that   in   case   the   respondent   No.1   Board   fails   to   complete   the 

 exercise   before   18th   June,   2018,   the   directions   be   given   to   consider   the 

 corrected mark-sheets as would be made available to the petitioner.::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2018                                ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2018 01:38:35 :::Judgment                                               16                              wp2842.2018.odt




                  We   feel   that   the   respondent   No.1   Board   will   not   be   able   to 

 complete the exercise before 18th June, 2018, however, even if the exercise 

 as   per   the   directions   given   above   is   completed   till   22nd   June,   2018,   the 

 respondents   and   concerned   authorities   can   be   directed   to   consider   the 

 revised mark-sheets of the petitioners and the other students in respect of 

 whom we have given directions, in the second round of counselling.     We, 

 accordingly, direct the respondent and the concerned authorities to consider 

 the   revised   mark-sheets   of   the   petitioners   and   other   students   regarding 

 whom   directions   are   given   in   this   judgment,   in   the   second   round   of 

 counselling.21]              The writ petition is  allowed  accordingly. In the circumstances, 

 the parties to bear their own costs.JUDGE                                      JUDGE




 22]              At   this   stage,   Shri   C.S.   Kaptan,   learned   Senior   Advocateappearing   on   behalf   of   respondent-Board   requests   that   the   effect   and 

 operation of the judgment be kept in abeyance for a period of four weeks, so 

 as to enable the Board to take appropriate steps in the matter. The request is  

 opposed by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner.::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2018                                 ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2018 01:38:35 :::Judgment                                               17                              wp2842.2018.odt




 23]                       Considering   the   facts   of   the   case,   we   find   that   thepetitioner and other similarly situated students would be adversely affected if 

 the request as made on behalf of the respondent-Board is granted. Therefore, 

 the request is rejected.Steno copy of this judgment be furnished to the parties.JUDGE                                      JUDGE




 Ansari::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2018                                 ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2018 01:38:35 :::