GAURAV JAISWAL THROUGH HIS LEGAL GUARDIAN  Vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF EDUCATION/NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY & ANR.

W.P.(C) 6838/2020 Page 1 of 12
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision : 07th January , 2021

+ W.P.(C) 6838/2020 & CM APPL. 23648/2020
GAURAV JAISWAL THROUGH HIS
LEGAL GUARDIAN ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Paras Jain, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUG H MINISTRY
OF EDUCATION/NATIONAL TESTING
AGENCY & ANR ….. Respondent s
Through: Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC
for UOI/R -1.
Mr. Arjun Mitra, Advocate for
R-2/IIT.
Mr. Amit Bansal & Ms. Seema
Dolo, Advocates for R -3/NTA
with Ms. Sarika Soam,
Representative of NTA.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR . JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

J U D G M E N T
PRATEEK JALAN, J. (Oral )
The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through
video conferencing.
1. The petitioner was an aspirant for admission to the Indian
Institutes of Technology and other engineering colleges . He
participated in the Joint Entrance Examination [“JEE”] (Main )
2021:DHC:53

W.P.(C) 6838/2020 Page 2 of 12
conducted by the National Testing Agency [“NTA”] in January 2020
and Septe mber 2020. The grievance of the petitioner is that the final
scoresheet of the JEE (Main ) exami nation published by the NTA in
September 2020 wrongly reflects the percentile in which he was
place d in the January 2020 exam ination .
2. Learned counsel for the parties inform me that the JEE (Main )
exam ination was con ducted in January 2020 , and any candidate
desir ing to improve his/her performance was entitled to take the
examination again in September 2020. A scoresheet was issued after
the January 2020 examination, reflecting the percentile in which the
candidate was placed in that round. Another scoresheet , issued after
the September 2020 round, contained the candidate’s result in both the
rounds of the JEE (Main). The eligibility of the candidate to take the
JEE (Advance) examination (necessary for admission to the IITs) was
dependent on the better perfo rmance between the January 2020
session and the September 2020 session. The JEE (Main) examination
is a computer -based examination conducted online. Candidates mark
their responses to the questions electronically on OMR (Optical Mark
Recognition) sheets , whi ch are compared with the correct answers
according to the NTA answer key. Prior to the declaration of results,
NTA also uploads the answer key and the OMR sheets of the
candidates, to enable consideration of any challenge to the answer key .
3. In the present case, the petitioner claims that he was placed in
the percentile 98.81058 88 in the January 2020 session. The petitioner
has annexed a print -out of his score sheet as Annexure – 2 to the writ
petition (at page 23 of the paper book ). He contends that this was the
2021:DHC:53

W.P.(C) 6838/2020 Page 3 of 12
scoresheet downloaded by him from the NTA website in January
2020.
4. The petitioner thereafter took the JEE (Main) exam ination again
in September 2020 , whereafter a combined scoresheet was issued by
the NTA , a copy w hereof has been annexed to the writ p etition at
Annexure – 3 (at page 24 of the paper book) . In the combined
scoresheet , the petitioner is shown to have been p laced in percentile
51.810 5888 in the January 2020 session and percentile 71.3367318 in
the Sep tember 2020 session of the JEE (Main) ex amination .
According to the petitioner , this is the result of a technical error on the
part of NTA , and the combined scoresheet of September 2020 does
not correctly reflect the percentile in which he was placed in the
Janua ry 2020 session.
5. The NTA was adde d as a party (respondent No.3 ) to the present
petition by an order dated 2 3.09.2020 , and notice was issued to it ,
returnable on 24.09.2020 . In the order dated 24.09.2020, the
contention of NTA is recorded to the effect that the scoresheet which
is attached at page no. 23 of the paper book is a forged one, and NTA
was directed to file the original scoresheet . By a further order dated
25.09.2020 , the petitioner’s contention that the scoresheet at page 23
is the correct scoreshe et was also recorded , and the pet itioner was
permitted to appear in the JEE (Advance ) examination held on
27.09.2020. It was further directed that the petitioner’s result would
not be declared without further orders of the Court, and that the
petitioner wou ld not be entitled to claim any equity on the account of
the said order.
2021:DHC:53

W.P.(C) 6838/2020 Page 4 of 12
6. Pursuant to the order dated 24.09.2020, the NTA filed (vide
diary no. 834002/2020 ) the original scoresheet of the petitioner , which
was published after the Jan uary 2020 session . The c opy of the
scoresheet filed by the NTA shows that after the Jan uary 2020 session,
the petitioner was in fact placed in percentile 51.8105888 . The NTA
has also filed a counter affidavit on 29 .09.2020 , in which it has sought
to substantiate its case regardin g the forgery of the scoresheet by the
petitioner with the following averments: –

“1. That present Petition deserves to be dismissed at the
outset on the ground that Petitioner has not come before
this Hon‟ble Court with clean hands. The Petitioner has
premised his entire case on the b asis of a forged and
fabricated Score Card for Joint Entrance Examination
(Main) January, 2020 (at page 23 as Annexure P -2),
which he claims he has downloaded from the website of
jeemain.nta.nic.in which is maintained for the JEE (Main)
Exam by Respondent No.3, National Testing Agency
(NTA). The said score card reflecting Petitioner‟s
percentile as 98.8105888, is not a genuine Score Card
which is writ large on the face of the document. A
comparison of the forged Score Card fil ed by the
Petitioner with the a ctual Score Card from the official
website of JEE (Main), shows great variances and points
out the following glaring editing and changes made in the
forged document: –

(i) The following score(s) have been fabricated in the
as JEE (Main) January 2020 Score Card produced by the
Petitioner ( at page 23 as Annexure P -2):
Subject Original
Score Fabricated
Score
Physics 78.9217920 98.9217920
Chemistry 10.4721474 99..4721474
Mathematics 65.5215020 98.5215020
2021:DHC:53

W.P.(C) 6838/2020 Page 5 of 12
Total 51.8105888 98.81058 88

(ii) The score against Chemistry subject in the forged
document has two decimals, 99..4721474 , which is
evidently edited. It is pertinent to mention that the
fabricated total score in percentile as well as its subject –
wise component percentile score have n ot been awarded to
any candidate s of JEE (Main) January 2020.

(iii) The Score in digits, post decimal against Physics,
Chemistry, Mathematics and total, are identically similar
and only the digits before the decimal are different;

(iv) The entries against Person wi th Disability (PwD),
Gender, Nat ionality and the NTA Scores in Words are all
in block letters in the Score Card produced by the
Petitioner. On the other hand, these entry in the Score
Card of NTA, which is a standard format, is in sentence
form. It may fur ther be mentioned that the Candi date‟s
particulars including Gender, Category and Person with
Disability (PwD) have been indicated as mentioned by the
candidate in the Online Application Form and are in
sentence form only.

The aforesaid variances irrefuta bly establish that the JEE
(Main ) January 2020 Score Card filed by the Petitioner
has not been published by the NTA, the same being
different from the usual format of Score Card issued by
NTA. ”

7. The NTA has also annexed , alongwith its counter affidavit , a
report of the National Informati cs Centre [“NIC”], which provides
technical support to the NTA . The NIC report dated 27.09.2020 states
as follows : –

2021:DHC:53

W.P.(C) 6838/2020 Page 6 of 12
“TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN
Subject: JEE (Main) 2020 – Candidate’s Application
Number: 200310189671 – reg.

1. The National Informatics Centre (NIC) is providing
Technical Support to National Testing Agency (NTA) for
the JEE (Main) -2020. Based on result data and cut -off
received form NTA, NIC published Score Card of
January and April/September 2020 on JEE(M ain) portal.

2. As per the rec ord available in database server, the
Score Card of the Candidate (having Application
Number: 200310189671, Name: GAURAV JAISWAL) for
January 2020 and April/September 2020 are enclosed
(200310189671 -Scoresheet -JAN20.pdf and
200310189671 -Scoresheet -SEP20.pd f).
3. As per the Score Card, the NTA Score obtained by
the Candidate are 51.8105888 Percentile in January
2020 and 71.3367318 in April/ September 2020.
4. Details of the Audit Trail of Application Number:
200310189671 are attached for reference
(20031018 9671 -AuditTrai l.pdf).
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
(Mohd. Anwar Khan) ”

Thus, a ccording to the NIC also , the scoresheet placed on record by
the NTA is the correct scoresheet of the petitioner.
8. In addition to the above factual aver ments, Mr. Bansal, learned
couns el for the NTA, also submit s in the course of arguments that in
the event the petitioner had been placed in percentile 98.8105888 in
the January 2020 session, he would have been assured of his eligibility
for the JEE (Advan ce) examination, and is very unli kely to have tried
his luck in the September 2020 round of the JEE (Main). He also
2021:DHC:53

W.P.(C) 6838/2020 Page 7 of 12
points out that, if the petitioner’s case is accepted, he dropped from
being placed above the 98th percentile in January 2020, to below the
72nd percentile in September 2020 .
9. The petitioner , on the other hand , has placed on record an
affidavit of his brother dated 24.09.2020 , seeking to stand by the
scoresheet annexed at page 23 of the writ petition. The petitioner has
also filed a rejoinder t o the counter affidavit filled by the NTA , in
which this contention has been reiterated.
10. In the rejoinder affidavit , a contention has also been raised to
the effect that there is a discrepancy between the petitioner’s OMR
responses of the September 2020 s ession, as downloaded by the
petitioner and the copies placed on record by the NTA. According to
the petitioner, this shows tampering of his result by NTA, and casts
doubt on the credibility of the entire process.
11. Mr. Paras Jain , learned coun sel for the pe titioner , also relies
upon orders passed by this Court in petitions relating to the National
Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) , which is also conducted by
NTA . The contention of Mr. Jain is that this Court is examining
similar disputes regarding tamperi ng of OMR sheets in those writ
petitions.
12. Mr. Bansal, on the other hand , submits that the cases regarding
the JEE and NEET are materially different , inasmuch as NEET is an
offline , physical exam , where the candidates fill physical OMR sheet s
in hard copy , whereas JEE is an online , comput er-based exam , where
no physical OMR sheets are filled in by the candidates. Mr. Bansal
specifically states that although in certain petitions regarding NEET ,
2021:DHC:53

W.P.(C) 6838/2020 Page 8 of 12
this Court has called for the original documents in order to est ablish
the veracity of the conten tions of the petitioners therein, there is no
case pending with relation to the veracity of the scoring in the JEE ,
being a computer -based exam .
13. Without getting into the merits raised in other petitions against
NTA, I am o f the view that in the present ca se, the contention
regarding the discrepancy in the OMR sheets is a red herring. The
petitioner’s grievances in this regard relate to the September 2020
session, which is not the subject matter of the present writ petition at
all. There is no challenge in the petition to the September 2020 result
declared by NTA. The grievances of the petitioner are based only
upon the result which he claim s to have achieve d in the Jan uary 2020
examination being wrongly reflected in the c ombined scoresheet
published by the NTA in September 2020. In these circumstances , the
grievances of the petitioner regarding the OMR sheets of the
September 2020 examination are not germane to the determination of
this petition.
14. As far as the January 2020 exa mination is concerned, the
petitioner has clearly stated that he did not download his recorded
responses of Jan uary 2020 as he was satisfied with his perfor mance in
that exam. The following averment in the rejoinder affidavit is
unequivocal on this aspect : –
“8. That on seeing the result of the Part -1, JEE Main
Examination, 2020 dated 17.01.2020 with percentile
score of 98.8105888 , Petitioner like any prudent person
did not download his recorded response of January, 2020
dated 17.01.2020 as he was satisfied with his
2021:DHC:53

W.P.(C) 6838/2020 Page 9 of 12
performance. However, for JEE Main Examination
September, 2020 ( Part-2), Petitioner downloaded his
recorded response from the official website of the
Respondent and, now, after matching the a) JEE Main
September, 2020 recorded response downloaded by
Petitioner with b) JEE Main September, 2020 recorded
response furnished by the Respondent in its Short
Affidavit before this Hon‟ble Court, Petitioner has been
astonished to observe that there is mis -match in the
recorded response of the JEE Main Exami nation,
September, 2020. This pr oves that there has been an
internal manipulation on the part of the Respondent,
firstly with the recorded response and, thereafter, with the
final result dated 12.09.2020. ”
(Emphasis supplied )

15. In these circumstances, it is impossible for the petitione r to
dispute at this stage that the OMR sheets of January 2020 placed on
record by NTA are incorrect.
16. Significantly, in answer to the specific quer y of the Court , Mr.
Jain submitted that the window for a candidate to downlo ad his /her
OMR responses from th e NTA website is prior to the declaration of
results . In these circumstances , it appears that the contention of the
petitioner in the aforesaid paragraph that he did not download his
responses of January 2020 because he was satisfied with his score is ,
at the very least , misleading. Mr. Bansal also confirms , upon
instructions from the representative of the NTA, who is attending the
video conference hearing , that the recorded responses of the
candidates can only be downloade d prior to the decl aration of resu lts.
In these circumstances, the explanation offered by the petitioner for
2021:DHC:53

W.P.(C) 6838/2020 Page 10 of 12
his failure to download the January 2020 OMR responses is not
worthy of acceptance.
17. This diversion having been dealt with, we return to the original
issue regarding the genuineness and veracity of the January 2020
scoresheet annexed by the petitioner at page 23 of the writ petition .
The petitioner claims this is the scoresheet downloaded from the NTA
website , and the inconsistent September 2020 scoresheet is the result
of a technica l error; the NTA stands by the September 2020
scoresheet , and characterises the document at page 23 as false and
fabricated.
18. I am of the view that this is a matter entirely dependent on an
adjudication of disputed question s of f act and unsuitable for
determination in writ proceedings . Mr. Jain was given time to consider
this, and today cites paragraph 11 of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,
2020 SCC Online SC 291 [C.A. No. 1600/2020, decided on
14.02.2020 ] to submit that the existence of disputed questions of fact
does not entirely preclude the jurisdiction of the writ court . In
paragraph 11 of Popatrao , the Court relied upon ABL International
Ltd. & A nr. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation o f India Ltd. &
Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 553, and held as follows:
“11. No doubt that, normally, when a petition involves
disputed questions of fact and law, the High Court would
be slow in entertaining the petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. However, it is a rule of self –
restraint and not a hard and fast rule. In any case, this
Court in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit
2021:DHC:53

W.P.(C) 6838/2020 Page 11 of 12
Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 553 has
observed thus:
“19. Therefore, it is clear from the above enunciat ion of
law that merely because one of the parties to the
litigation raises a dispute in regard to the facts of the
case, the court entertaining such petition under Article
226 of the Constitution is not always bound to relegate
the parties to a suit. In th e above case of Gunwant Kaur
[(1969) 3 SCC 769] this Court e ven went to the extent
of holding that in a writ petition, if the facts require,
even oral evidence can be taken. This clearly shows that
in an appropriate case, the writ court has the
jurisdictio n to entertain a writ petition involving
disputed questions of fact and there is no absolute bar
for entertaining a writ petition even if the same arises
out of a contractual obligation and/or involves some
disputed questions of fact ””

19. I am afraid, learne d counsel misses the point. Just because
something can be done in an appropriate case does not mean it must
be don e in every case – there are cases where the factual disputes
raised may be appropriate for adjudication under Article 226, but that
is an exce ptional position and not the general rule . This is clear
enough from the opening sentence of paragraph 11 of Popat rao, cited
by Mr. Jain , and placed beyond doubt by the observations in
paragraph 13 of the same judgment:
“13. It could thus be seen, that eve n if there are disputed
questions of fact which fall for consideration but i f they
do not require elaborate evidence to be adduced, the
High Court is not precluded from entertaining a petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, such a
plenary power has to be exercised by the High Court in
exceptional circumstances. Th e High Court would be
justified in exercising such a power to the exclusion of
other available remedies only when it finds that the
2021:DHC:53

W.P.(C) 6838/2020 Page 12 of 12
action of the State or its instrumentality is ar bitrary and
unreasonable and, as such, violative of Article 14 of the
Consti tution of India. In any case, in the present case, we
find that there are hardly any disputed questions of
facts. ”

20. The present case does not, in my view, fall within the exception
carved out by the Supreme Court. As detailed above , the NTA has
certainly raised a credible doubt as to the genuineness of the
scoresheet at page 23 of the writ petition . The technical agency
responsible, the NIC, has looked into the matter and supported its
stand. The NTA cannot be said , in the se circumstances , to have act ed
unreasonably or arbitrarily. The question s of forgery , fraud and
tampering raised in present case would require elaborate evidence , and
are not capable of summary adjudication under Article 226 of the
Constitution .
21. For the reasons aforesaid , the present writ petition is dismissed.
The petitioner is however at liberty to take such other remedy as may
be available to him in law, if he is so advised .

PRATEEK JALAN , J.
JANUARY 0 7, 2021
„pv‟
2021:DHC:53