Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)No. 8545/2015 &CM No.18399/2015 (for stay).
ROSHANLALSAINI Petitioner
Through: Ms. Kamlakshi Singh, Adv.
Through: Mr. Amit Bansal, Ms. Manisha Singh and Mr. Akhil Kulshrestha, Advs. for
CBSE.
04.09.2015 CM No.18400/2015 (for exemption^.
ORDER
1. Allowed, subject tojustexceptions.
2. TheCMstands disposed of. W.P.fC) No. 8545/2015 & CM No.18399/2015 (for stavV
3. The petitioner, an examinee in the All India Pre-Medical Test (AIPMT) - 2015, result whereof was decided on I?"' August, 2015, seeks amandamus to the respondents no.l to 3Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to produce the answer sheet / OMR sheet ofthe petitioner and to re-evaluate the same and remove any discrepancy found therein.
4. The counsel for the respondents no.l to 3 CBSE appearing on advance notice has, today in Court handed over the Notification dated 8"' August, 2015 of the respondents no.l to 3CBSE (and which is taken on record), declaring, (i) that the images of the OMR answer sheets and responses to the questions marked by the candidates who had appeared for AIPMT-2015 and answer key ofRe-test of AIPMT conducted on 25"" July, 2015 would be displayed on the AIPMT website on 10 and 11"^ August, 2015; (ii) that the candidates would be entitled to W.P.(C) No. 8545/2015 page[1] of[2] 2015:DHC:11543 challenge the same on 10^^ and 11«^ August, 2015; and, (iii) that the answer key would be displayed on 12"^ and 13"^ August, 2015 and the candidates would be entitled to challenge the same on the same dates. It is thus contended that the OMR answer sheets have already been given inspection ofand an opportunity for pointing out the errors / mistakes if any therein has already been given and the petitioner having not availed ofthe same within the time permitted therefor, is not entitled tomaintain the present petition.
5. The counsel for the petitioner states that when the result itselfwas declared on l?"" August, 2015, no opportunity could have been availed ofbefore that.
6. The counsel for the respondents no.l to 3CBSE states that the inspection of OMR sheets and opportunity to point out the mistakes had necessarily to be given prior to the final declaration ofresult on 17'*' August, 2015.
7. Faced therewith, the counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner being from Rajasthan, was not aware.
8. The same cannot bea ground.
9. There isno merit inthe petition. Dismissed.
10. No costs.
SEPTEMBER 04, 2015 pp.. W.P.(C) No. 8545/2015 RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J page 1 of[2]