Tanishq Mishra v. National Testing Agency and Anr.

5. Mr. Peechara places reliance on the documents annexed with the Petitioner’s abovesaid affidavit, to submit that the two score cards produced and relied upon by Petitioner, are genuine, and have been downloaded from the website of the Respondent. He asserts that although NTA may not have mala fide intention against the Petitioner, but nonetheless, his results have been manipulated, which is ex-facie evident from the records presented to the Court. To demonstrate genuineness, Mr. Peechara points to the time and date of download mentioned atop the score cards produced by him at Annexures P-3 and P-5. He correlates the same from the browser history of his web-browser on the computer on which they were downloaded, as well as the ‘file properties’ of the downloaded PDFs, which are claimed to be the score cards downloaded from the NTA website, to the computer of the Petitioner. Mr. Peechara further argues that, in fact, the timestamps of accessing the NTA website and downloading the scorecard matches with the website login timestamps shown by the NTA in the documents enclosed with its counter-affidavit, and this goes on to prove the veracity of Petitioner’s contention. Nonetheless, Petitioner is willing to submit his computer system for forensic analysis at his own risk and cost.

6. Mr. Peechara also asserts that the Petitioner is a bright student who has done exceedingly well in both the sessions, but only on account of manipulation of score cards, which is outside of his control, he is being deprived of an opportunity to appear in JEE (Advanced) and consequently, also from relying upon his score cards for seeking admission to several premier engineering colleges. In case no relief is granted, Petitioner’s career prospects would be severely prejudiced, and that would cause him severe emotional distress. NTA’s submissions:

7. Per contra, Mr. Sanjay Khanna, Standing Counsel for NTA (assisted by Ms. Sarika Soam, Legal Consultant for NTA and Mr. Binod Kumar Sahu, Director, NTA, who are present in court) states that Petitioner’s documents have no credibility. The results of both sessions of JEE (Main) for all candidates were uploaded only once on the site and have been neither changed nor modified since then.

8. To substantiate his stand, he places reliance on the counter affidavit and the documents enclosed therewith. He highlights the following aspects:

9. Referring to the documents filed, Mr. Khanna has taken the Court through the entire process of registration on the NTA website - which entails filing of the application form, generation of the admit card, etc. NTA has also enclosed Petitioner’s response sheets to each question of the two sessions of the exam, as attempted by him on the date of the exam, which are stored in and retrieved from NIC’s database, in order to co-relate the scores mentioned on the score cards relied upon by them.

10. It is explained that, upon going through the response sheets, the raw scores which emerge, tally with the NTA’s record that Petitioner has obtained only 20.7668939 percentile in session 1 and 14.6356167 percentile in session 2. The score-cards relied upon by the Petitioner do not match NTA records and are forged and fabricated. No relief can be granted on that basis.

11. Additionally, Mr. Khanna submits that assuming, but vehemently denying that the documents of the Petitioner are genuine, at the highest, it can only be said that the Petitioner has raised a highly disputed question of fact, which, however, this Court cannot determine while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.[1]

12. NTA has facilitated the provision for all candidates to download their respective score cards from ‘UMANG’ and ‘DigiLocker’ mobile apps which are e-governance platforms under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. Further, score cards were also sent via e-mail to each candidate, including the Petitioner. Thus, there are ample ways to verify that the NTA record is the correct one. Analysis:

13. Considering the fact that this decision would have serious consequences for the Petitioner, the Court has heard the counsel for the parties at sufficient length. On the basis of analysis of documents presented by both the parties, it manifests that the records of NTA do not match the documents filed and relied upon by the Petitioner as Annexure P-3 and P-5, purported to be high-scoring score cards of sessions 1 and 2 respectively. Since Petitioner strongly urges that his documents are authentic and are downloaded from the website of the Respondents, the Court dwelled into this disputed arena to form a prima facie view, as in the present proceedings, the court cannot embark upon a full-fledged trial. Before going further, for clarity, the score cards both the sessions, relied upon by Petitioner and by On this proposition, he places reliance on the decision of this Court dated 07th January, 2021 in W.P.(C) 6838/2020 titled Gaurav Jaiswal Through his Legal Guardian v. Union of India through Ministry of Education/ National Testing Agency & Anr. the Respondents, are juxtaposed against each other, hereinbelow:2 Session 1 - Petitioner’s version of score card: NTA’s version of score cards have been obtained by scanning the QR code on the score cards, for the purpose of inserting a clearer colourised version; it, however, is identical to the score cards filed by NTA in its counter affidavit, albeit in black & white. Session 1 - NTA’s version of score card: Session 2 - Petitioner’s version of score card: Session 2 - NTA’s version of score card:

14. The score cards produced by Petitioner have a nearly identical appearance when compared with the score cards produced by NTA, with the obvious differences in the scores mentioned therein. If Petitioner’s version is to be believed, this seemingly indicates manipulation. However, the score cards are a declaration of results, and thus the cogent and efficacious basis for the court to form an opinion is to verify the record of the testing agency where the candidate’s data is stored. Since the exam is conducted electronically and not in pen-and-paper mode, a digital footprint record is maintained in electronic format with full details which can be accessed for verification. The Respondents have presented the certified copies of printouts of the electronic record, which are discussed hereinafter.

15. The data of NTA, as shown to the court, is found to be reliable, and no visible manipulation is found that should warrant issuance of a mandamus, as prayed for.

16. The analysis of the documents and facts presented bring out the following critical factors:

A. NIC provides technical support to NTA for conducting the JEE exams. Significantly, when the results are declared, an e-mail is autogenerated from the server of National Informatics Centre [“NIC”], which is sent to the e-mail ID provided by the candidate, with a copy to an e-mail ID of the NTA which is specially designated for this purpose. The emails were sent immediately on the declaration of results and thus forms the basis for verification of results whenever a dispute is raised regarding the authenticity of the results. The print outs of such e-mails sent by the server of NIC, copy whereof was marked to NTA, have been annexed with the counter affidavit and have been examined by the court. Copy of the emails is as under: For session 1: For session 2:

E. NTA was also called upon to show Petitioner’s recorded response sheets for both the sessions, on the basis whereof, scores as mentioned in the score cards have been generated. These response sheets show the questions which were either attempted correctly, incorrectly or not attempted by Petitioner. On the basis of such responses, the raw score was generated which ultimately led to calculation of the percentile achieved by the Petitioner which is mentioned in the NTA score cards. These have also been perused by the court, and tally with the electronic audit log records furnished by the NTA. F. When the provisional answer keys were uploaded, response sheets were also uploaded at the same time, and made freely available for download by the candidates to verify their answers. However, no response sheet has been annexed with the petition which could corroborate the scores mentioned in Annexures P-3 and P-5. Rather, no averment has been made in the petition denying the response sheets produced by NTA. When confronted with the above, Mr. Peechara on instructions orally denies the response sheets produced by NTA, but is unable to give an explanation as to why the Petitioner did not download the response sheets correlating with the highscoring score cards of both the sessions. This denial is not only reactive, but is a mere afterthought.

I. In the petition, there is no averment or explanation regarding the alleged date of manipulation. It merely harps on the fact that Annexures P-3 and P-5 were downloaded from NTA website. What was downloaded on the computer, wherefrom has it been downloaded, and whether it has been manipulated or is genuine, cannot be ascertained conclusively, merely on the basis of the Petitioner’s assertion. Perhaps a forensic analysis is necessary to arrive at a decisive answer on this aspect, but in the instant proceedings, only taking a prima facie view is possible.

17. From the above, it manifests that the records of the Respondent do not support the Petitioner on any aspect whatsoever. There is no basis for the Court to assume that the Respondent’s record is manipulated or fabricated.

18. Further, in chambers, while finalizing the order, the court has also noticed a glaring error which casts serious doubt on the score cards produced by the Petitioner. The score card for session 2, as relied upon by the Petitioner (Annexure P-5), has a discrepancy between the figures and words of the NTA Score, which is extracted hereinbelow: [highlight supplied]

19. As the scores and score-cards are auto generated by the NTA, there is no scope for occurrence of any human error such as the one noticed above. This further chips away at the Petitioner’s claim of genuineness of documents produced.

20. The upshot of the above discussion is that the Petitioner does not have the response sheets to authenticate his scores, which could perhaps have supported his version. On the other hand, digital records produced by NTA, system-generated emails, QR mismatch, response sheets with audit log, login details for accessing website, as maintained and authenticated by NIC, all point the case to the contrary. While Petitioner may continue to assert that his documents are authentic, however, on the basis of facts and documents shown, this Court cannot come to this conclusion. The question of forgery and tampering of records can only be determined after the parties have been afforded an opportunity to lead evidence, and this exercise cannot be undertaken in the present proceedings. The Petitioner has failed to prove his bona fides. The Court remains unconvinced of the genuineness of the Petitioner’s documents. Thus, there is no basis to grant relief to the Petitioner.

21. Dismissed along with pending application.

22. Before parting, one aspect which Mr. Peechara had emphasised on needs to be broached. He apprised the court of the emotional stress that the Petitioner is undergoing on account of the above-noted circumstances. Considering the weight attached to one’s performance in such national level entrance tests which open doors to prestigious colleges, such a response is quite understandable. However, aspirants must be encouraged by their parents, teachers and mentors to see the larger picture - that this is not the end of the road for them, and that their performance in one entrance examination is not the only yardstick for measuring their success. The Petitioner, who has just stepped into adulthood, has a long way to go, and life will surely offer him plenty of opportunities to excel.

23. Needless to say, since the court has expressed only a prima facie view on the authenticity of Petitioner’s score cards, he is at liberty to avail such other remedy in respect thereof, as is available in law, if so advised.

SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 18, 2022 d.negi