Transcription

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (EXTRAORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2017 IN THE MATTER OF: Miss. Urvashi Khanna.Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare & Ors Respondents INDEX Sl. No. Particulars Page 1. Urgent Application A 2. Letter of Service B 3 Memo of Parties C 4 Synopsis & List of dates D-F 5. Writ Petition under Article 226 of the 1-13 Constitution of India with Affidavit 6. Annexure P-1 14 A copy of the Admit Card issued to the Petitioner. 7. Annexure P A copy of the Question Paper given to the Petitioner 8. Annexure P-3 36 A copy of the OMR sheet submitted by the petitioner 9. Annexure P A copy of the Information Booklet containing the said provision for challenging the Answer Sheet 10. Annexure P-5 (Colly) Copies of the scanned pages of the books referred 11 ANNEXURE P-6 63 A copy of the Credit Card Statement Indicating the fact of payment

2 12. Annexure P A copy of the sent by the Petitioner to the Respondents 13. Annexure P A copy of the Petitioner s grievance and the Response by the Respondent No C.M.of Application for Stay 16. Vakalatnama 72 New Delhi Dated: Through Filed by: Petitioner (M. R. Shamshad) Advocate for the Petitioner D/1349/2000 B-4, {LGF}Jangpura Extension, New Delhi Ph: /

3 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI EXTRAORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2017 IN THE MATTER OF: Miss. Urvashi Khanna.Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare & Ors Respondents The Registrar, Delhi High Court, Delhi. Sir, URGENT APPLICATION Please list the accompanying Writ Petition on urgent basis as urgent reliefs have been sought from this Hon ble Court. Please list the same on July, Yours faithfully, Through Filed by: Petitioner (M. R. Shamshad) Advocate for the Petitioner D/1349/2000 B-4, {LGF}Jangpura Extension, New Delhi Ph: / New Delhi Dated:

4 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI EXTRAORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2017 IN THE MATTER OF: Miss Urvashi Khanna.Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare & Ors Respondents LETTER OF SERVICE 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Moti Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi 2. Central Board of Secondary Education, Shiksha Kendra, 2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi through its Secretary 3. The Deputy Secretary (Exam), National Eligibility cum Entrance Test Unit, Central Board of Secondary Education, Shiksha Kendra, 2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi Sirs, Please find enclosed copy of Writ Petition along with applications and documents accompanying the said Petition for your record and reference. Please be notified that the matter will be listed before the Hon ble Court on or about July, Sincerely yours, Filed by: Petitioner Through New Delhi (M. R. Shamshad) Advocate for the Petitioner D/1349/2000 B-4, {LGF}Jangpura Extension, New Delhi Ph: / Dated:

5 SYNOPSIS & LIST OF DATES The present petition arises out of the recent result of NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY CUM ENTRANCE TEST (UG) 2017 (NEET-UG-2017) conducted and declared by Central Board of Secondary Education on 23 rd June The Petitioner is compelled to approach this Hon ble Court because the Respondent No 2, herein has not identified and marked the correct options of answers in the Answer Key issued by them for NEET-UG The Petitioner marked the correct options in the answer sheet which do not correspond to the Answer Key issued by the Respondents. Meaning thereby, if the stand of the Petitioner that the Answer Key has wrong reflections for right options, the entire process of selection and fixing the merit becomes unfair and leads to serious violation of legal as well as fundamental rights of the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, for at least four question (Question No.58 (Biology), 68 (Biology), 105 (Chemistry) and 140 (Physics)), the Answer Key reflected wrong answers. Thereafter, the Petitioner immediately, as per prescribed time period, attempted to lodge her protest/grievance and wrote an after the payment of the prescribed fees. Despite this effort, the result of the Petitioner remained unchanged because the protest/request of the Petitioner to look into the correctness of the Answer Key and evaluation of the answers given by the Petitioner has not been addressed by the Respondents. The Petitioner seriously feels that if the result of the Petitioner is declared as per the correct answers (not as per the Answer Key issued by the Respondents), the rank of the Petitioner in the merit list will have a substantial raise/improvement which will enable here opting for best suitable college In such a tough competition every mark would have a critical bearing on the rank of the candidate and thus would affect her/his choice of college and admission. List of Dates

6 Dates between which on line submission of application for NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY CUM ENTRANCE TEST (UG) 2017 (NEET-UG-2017), was to completed Last date for successful final transaction of the fees towards submission of application for NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY CUM ENTRANCE TEST (UG) 2017 (NEET-UG-2017) The admit cards of the applicants/candidates were to be uploaded by the Respondents on their website. The Petitioner was allotted Roll No The NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY CUM ENTRANCE TEST (UG) 2017 (NEET-UG-2017) was conducted on Answer Key to the NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY CUM ENTRANCE TEST (UG) 2017 (NEET-UG-2017) was uploaded on the web site and two days time (i.e. 15th June, 2017 and 16th June, 2017) was given to the candidates to challenge the Answers The Petitioner challenged the four answers, which according to the Petitioner were wrong in the Answer key issued by the Respondents by paying the requisite fees on the website of the Respondent. When even after repeated efforts, the Petitioner could not upload the images on website of the Respondent on , even after paying the requisite fees and she learnt that many similar candidates were trying to upload the images met the same fate, she lodged a grievance on the website at 06:30:55 AM on and appraised the authorities about the problem being faced by the petitioner but no response was given. That when no response was given and the deadline to challenge the answer key was approaching fast, as a desperate measure, the petitioner sent a mail on the e-

7 mail addresses provided but no response was given, nor the snag was removed. That it was only after the time was lapsed, a computer generated reply (as it appears) was posted to the grievance of the petitioner, stating therein that the time to challenge the Answer key has lapsed, conveniently ignoring the fact that the petitioner has lodged her grievance well within time i.e. at 6:30 AM and thereafter had also sent a mail at about 01:25 P.M.. Resultantly, the evaluation of (NEET-UG-2017) Examination remains the same despite so much efforts and for which reasons are completely attributable to the Respondents, specially Respondents No 2 and Results of (NEET-UG-2017) were declared, in which the Petitioner was listed at the Rank of Aggrieved by the abovementioned situation the Petitioner herein is constraint to file the present Writ Petition praying for relief prayed for. Hence this present Writ Petition Filed by: Petitioner Through New Delhi Dated: (M. R. Shamshad) Advocate for the Petitioner D/1349/2000 B-4, {LGF}Jangpura Extension, New Delhi Ph: /

8 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI EXTRAORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2017 IN THE MATTER OF: Miss. Urvashi Khanna D/o Dr. Vishal Khanna, Resident of 4/281, Flat No. F-1, Tulsa Enclave, Parvati Bagla Road, Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh MEMO OF PARTIES Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Moti Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi 2. Central Board of Secondary Education, Shiksha Kendra, 2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi through its Secretary 3. The Deputy Secretary (Exam), National Eligibility cum Entrance Test Unit, Central Board of Secondary Education, Shiksha Kendra, 2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi Petitioner Respondents Filed by: Through Petitioner New Delhi Dated: (M. R. Shamshad) Advocate for the Petitioner D/1349/2000 B-4, {LGF}Jangpura Extension, New Delhi Ph: /

9 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI EXTRAORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2017 IN THE MATTER OF:- Miss. Urvashi Khanna aged about 18 years D/o Dr. Vishal Khanna, Resident of 4/281, Flat No.F-1, Tulsa Enclave, Parvati Bagla Road, Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh 1. Union of India through Secretary, VERSUS Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Moti Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi 2. Central Board of Secondary Education, Shiksha Kendra, 2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhithrough its Secretary 3. The Deputy Secretary (Exam), National Eligibility cum Entrance Test Unit, Central Board of Secondary Education, Shiksha Kendra, 2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi Petitioner Respondents WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT/ORDER/DIRECTION To The Hon ble Chief Justice and his companion Justices of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. The humble petition of the Petitioner above named

10 MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH 1. That the Petitioner is a Citizen of India and a meritorious student, who has successfully qualified the NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY CUM ENTRANCE TEST (UG) 2017 (NEET-UG-2017). 2. That the Respondent No. 1 is the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Moti Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Respondent No. 2 is the Central Board of Secondary Education, the Central Board of Secondary Education is a Board of Education for public and private schools, under the Union Government of India and Respondent No 3 is the Deputy Secretary (Exam), National Eligibility cum Entrance Test Unit, Central Board of Secondary Education, under whom supervision the exams were conducted. Hence the Respondents are instrumentalities of the State and amenable to Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. That the facts and circumstances, necessary for disposal of the present Writ Petition, can briefly be stated as under: i. That as per regulations framed under the Indian Medical Council Act-1956 as amended in 2016 and the Dentists Act as amended in 2016, NEET-UG-2017 was conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), for admission to MBBS/BDS Courses in India in Medical/Dental Colleges run with the approval of Medical Council of India/Dental Council of India under the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India except for the institutions established through an Act of Parliament i.e. AIIMS and JIPMER Puducherry.

11 ii. That it was provided in the rules formulated for the purpose of holding the examinations that there would be a single eligibility cum entrance examination namely National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for admission to MBBS/BDS courses in each academic year and in order to be eligible for admission to MBBS/BDS Courses for a particular academic year, it would be necessary for a candidate to obtain minimum marks in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test held for thesaid academic year besides obtaining minimum prescribed marks at the qualifying examination. iii. That it was also provided that an all India merit list of the eligible candidates would be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for admission in MBBS/BDS courses from the said lists only. It was also provided that all admissions to MBBS/BDS courses within the respective categories shall be based solely on marks obtained in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test. iv. That accordingly, the Central Board of Secondary Education conducted the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (hereinafter referred to as NEET ) for admission to MBBS/BDS Courses in the session on Sunday, the 07th May, 2017 for the total number of seats available approximately, in which the Petitioner also participated after payment of requisite fees and completing all other formalities. A copy of the Admit Card issued to the Petitioner

12 is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No.1(Pages..to..) to this Petition. v. That the Entrance Test consisted of one paper containing 180 objective type questions (four options with single correct answer) from Physics, Chemistry and Biology (Botany & Zoology) to be answered on the specially designed machinereadable sheet. A copy of the Question Paper given to the Petitioner is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No.2(Pages to ) and A copy of the OMR sheet submitted by her is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No.3(Pages to )to this petition. vi. That after the examinationwas over the Answer Key was uploaded by the Respondent No.2 on its website and two days time (i.e. 15 th and 16 th June, 2017) was given to challenge the answers as per the procedure provided in the information booklet, wherein it was provided that Candidates would be given an opportunity to make online challenge against the OMR gradation/answer Key on payment of Rs.1000/- per answer challenged and the sum of Rs.1000/- per answer was refundable to candidate if his/her challenge was accepted by the Board. A copy of the relevant portion of the Information Booklet containing the said provision is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No.4(Pages to ) to this petition. vii. That the petitioner found that the answers of four questionsi.e. Question No. 58 (Biology), 68 (Biology), 105

13 (Chemistry) and 140 (Physics), were wrongly mentioned in the Answer key. Question No Subject Correct Option as per Answer Key Correct Option as per the Petitioner Q58 Biology 1 3 Q68 Biology 1 2 Q105 Chemistry 1 2 Q140 Physics 4 3 viii. That the Petitioner herein arranged for the relevant scanned pages of the books and immediately tried to upload the same on the Respondent s website as required in accordance with the guidelines for candidates. Copies of the scanned pages of the books are annexed and marked as Annexure P5 (Colly) (Pages to ).However, due to some issue in the website, the Petitioner was again and again directed to step-3 i.e. making payment and when this problem persisted, the Petitioner made the payment and kept trying to upload the images but the problem continued, A copy of the Credit Card Statement Indicating the fact of payment is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No.6(Pages to ) to this petition. That when even after repeated efforts, the Petitioner could not upload the images and she learnt that all of her friends who were trying to upload the images met the same fate, she lodged a grievance on the website at 06:30:55 AM on and appraised the authorities about the problem being faced by the Petitioner but no response was given.

14 ix. That it is further submitted that when no response was given and the deadline to challenge the answer key was approaching fast, as a desperate measure, the Petitioner sent a mail on the addresses provided in the guidelines to the candidates, but no response was received, nor the issue in the website was resolved. A copy of the sent by the Petitioner is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No.7(Pages to )to this petition. That it was only after the time lapsed, a computer generated reply (as it appears) was posted to the grievance of the Petitioner, stating therein that the time to challenge the Answer key has lapsed, conveniently ignoring the fact that the petitioner has lodged her grievance well within time i.e. at 6:30 AM and thereafter had also sent a mail at about 01:25 P.M..A copy of the Petitioner s grievance and the response by the Respondent No.2 is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No.8 to this Petition. x. That thus despite being very vigilant and making the payment well within time the petitioner s challenge to the wrong answers was not considered and thus she had lost on valuable marks. The anomaly may be summarised as under: a. Despite the petitioner having chosen right options (for which four marks have been given), the computer will add one negative mark each. Hence, instead of adding 4 marks each to the Petitioner, it will add/has added one negative mark each for four questions.

15 b. Those who have not touched the disputed Questions, and marked (answer as per Answer Key, which according to the petitioner is incorrect) they shall also be given unjustifiably four marks. xi. That in such a tough competition every mark would have a critical bearing on the rank of the candidate and thus would affect her/his choice of college and admission xii. That even otherwise wrong evaluation of the answers amounts to grave injustice to the candidates who have submitted a correct answer and it also raises serious questions on the sanctity of these examinations. xiii. That it is noteworthy to mention that the Petitioner has secured an All India Rank of 3262 at present as per the declared result and if the three answers as challenged by the Petitioner (Marks of one answer has already been given to all the candidates by the Respondent, as one of the questions challenged by the petitioner has been held wrong by the authorities on someone else s challenge or suo motu) comes out to be a valid challenge, then her rank will have a substantial change in the merit list. It is further material to state that if the Petitioner s contention is correct then, the Petitioner has been doubly disadvantaged. One being negative marking assigned by the computer and secondly by not giving the marks for correctly choosing the right option. xiv. That apart from above 4 wrong options in Answer Key, the Petitioner has subsequently found another Answer to the Question as wrong. However, she could not pick that error in

16 time and therefore did not deposit requisite fees for challenging the same. xv. That such omissions in evaluation amount to undue favours to other candidates and resulted in grave injustice to the Petitioner and to the merit of the candidates in general and has also created a serious doubt on the sanctity of the entire examination. xvi. That the petitioner rank has severely got affected and hence it has led to unfair Selection on such a mistake on the part of Board. xvii. That the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury in case the result is not revised taking into accountthe correct marks. xviii. That having no alternative and efficacious remedy, this humble petition is being filed on the following amongst other : : G R O U N D S : A. Because, there was no negligence or laxity on the part of the petitioner in approaching the authorities and she is made to suffer despite of a prompt and pro-active action taken by her. Consequently the rank of the Petitioner has come down, which has let to serious violation of the Constitutional rights of the Petitioner to claim the admission in the best available college of her choice, according to the marks based on fair examination system. B. Because the acts of the Respondents are in clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Because of the wrong answers in the Answer Sheet, the less meritorious candidates were able to secure better rank in the merit list.

17 C. Because of the wrong answer evaluation by the Respondents, the Petitioner s rank has severely got affected and hence has led to unfair selection in gross violation of the Constitutional rights of the Petitioner. D. Because the wrong evaluation of the answers by the Respondents has resulted in an unfair merit list, which has further blocked the path of equal opportunity to the petitioner to select the college of her choice. E. Because, in such a tough competition every mark would have a heavy bearing on the rank of the candidate and thus would affect her/his choice of college. F. Because, despite being very vigilant and making the payment well within time the petitioner s challenge to the wrong answers was not considered and thus she had lost on valuable marks. G. Because, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury in case the NEET result is not revised taking in account the correct marks. H. Because, this Hon ble Court in Rahul Shrivastava & Anr. vs University Grant Commission, W.P.(C) No.3182/2013, has in such a situation correcting the answer (which was reflected wrongly in the Answer Key) and on the basis of the corrected answer, the UGC was directed to declare the result of the Petitioner. The re- computed results of the petitioner, in terms of the order, was declared by the Respondent UGC. I. Because, In Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor and Ors. vs. Samir Gupta and Ors. (1983)4 SCC 309, while considering challenge to correctness of key answers, the Apex Court, inter alia, held as under:- "16. We agree that the key-answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it

18 should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct If this were a case of doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred the key answer. But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalise the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong." In the aforesaid case, Supreme Court confirmed the direction given by the High Court for re-assessment to certain questions on the ground that the answers provided in the answer key were wrong. Here in the present case also, on the face of it the Answer Key of the Respondents is wrong and the Petitioner herein can t be penalized for no wrong of her. J. Because, in Manish Ujwal and Ors. vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University and Ors. (2005) 13 SCC 744, the Apex Court took the view that the student community could not be made to suffer on account of errors committed by the University. In this regard, the Court observed that first and paramount reason being the welfare of the students, wrong key answer can result in the merit being made a casualty. K. Because, in In D.P.S. Chawla v. Union of India & Ors. 184(2011) DLT 96, a Division Bench of this Court found that the answer, contained in the answer key in respect of one question, was wrong. The Court, accordingly, enhanced the marks secured by the petitioner in the first paper form 49% to 50%, thereby declaring him successful in the examination and eligible for promotion.

19 L. Because, in Gunjan Sinha Jain vs. Registrar General, High Court Of Delhi, W.P.(C) No. 449/2012 and connected matters, decided on , a Division Bench of this Court found certain answers contained in the answer key in respect of Delhi Judicial Service Examination to be incorrect and accordingly substituted those incorrect answers by what the Court felt were correct answers." 4. That the Petitioner has not filed any other Writ Petition or other further proceedings claiming similar relief in this Hon ble Court or any other Court. 5. The Petitioner submits that this Hon ble Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this petition since the Respondents No 2 and 3 in their information bulletin have made courts of Delhi as the sole jurisdiction for any kind of dispute arising out of the examination. Even otherwise, the Respondents are located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon ble Court. Hence the present Writ Petition is within the jurisdiction of this Hon ble Court P R A Y E R Wherefore it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon ble Court may be pleased to:- i. ISSUE appropriate Writ, Order or Direction quashing the result of National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (UG) 2017 (NEET-UG-2017) declared by the Respondent No.2 on ii. iii. ISSUE appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing the Respondent No.2 to declare the result of the Petitioner as per the correct answer as marked by the Petitioner in her Answer/OMR Sheet. ISSUE any other writ, order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case and ALLOW this humble petition.

20 Filed by: Petitioner Through New Delhi Dated: (M. R. Shamshad) Advocate for the Petitioner D/1349/2000 B-4, {LGF}Jangpura Extension, New Delhi Ph: /

21 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI EXTRAORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2017 IN THE MATTER OF: Miss. Urvashi Khanna.Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare & Ors Respondents AFFIDAVIT I, Miss. Urvashi Khanna D/o Dr. Vishal Khanna, Aged about 18 years, R/o 4/281, Flat No.F-1, Tulsa Enclave, Parvati Bagla Road, Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:- 1. That I am the Petitioner in the present matter and as such I am fully competent and authorized to swear and depose this affidavit and fully aware of the facts and circumstances of the present case. 2. That I have gone through the content of the accompanying Writ Petition, Synopsis, List of Dates and Events and I say that the facts stated therein are true to my knowledge based on records and submissions made therein are based on legal advice which I received from the counsel and which I believe to be correct. 3 I also say that the accompanying Annexures are true to their respective originals. VERIFICATION D E P O N E N T I, above named deponent, do hereby verify that contents of the above affidavit are true as per my knowledge and belief and as per the record maintained by the Petitioner and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Verified at Kanpur on day of June, D E P O N E N T

22 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI EXTRAORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2017 IN THE MATTER OF: Miss. Urvashi Khanna.Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare & Ors Respondents To APPLICATION FOR STAY UNDER SECTION 151 CPC The Hon ble Chief Justice of Delhi High Court And His Companion Justices of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: The humble Application of the Petitioner above named. 1. That the Petitioner has filed the accompanying Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ, order or direction quashing the result of NEET 2017 as declared by the Respondent No.2. and a writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No.2 to correct the Answer Key and declare the result of the Petitioner as per the corrected Answer Key. 2. That the facts in detail have been set out in the accompanying Writ Petition and the same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity and the same may kindly be treated as part and parcel of this Application.

23 3. It is submitted that the Petitioner marked the correct options in the answer sheet which do not correspond to the Answer Key issued by the Respondents. Meaning thereby, if the stand of the Petitioner that the Answer Key has wrong reflections for right options, the entire process of selection and fixing the merit becomes unfair and leads to serious violation of legal as well as fundamental rights of the Petitioner. 4. It is submitted that according to the Petitioner, for at least four question (Question No.58 (Biology), 68 (Biology), 105 (Chemistry) and 140 (Physics)), the Answer Key reflected wrong answers. Thereafter, the Petitioner immediately, as per prescribed time period, attempted to lodge her protest/grievance and wrote an after the payment of the prescribed fees. 5. It is submitted that despite this effort, the result of the Petitioner remained unchanged because the protest/request of the Petitioner to look into the correctness of the Answer Key and evaluation of the answers given by the Petitioner has not been addressed by the Respondents. 6. It is further submitted that the Petitioner seriously feels that if the result of the Petitioner is declared as per the correct answers (not as per the Answer Key issued by the Respondents), the rank of the Petitioner in the merit list will have a substantial raise/improvement which will enable here opting for best suitable college 7. That the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Petitioner and she is likely to succeed in the instant matter. 8. That the Petitioner will suffer irreparable loss of time in case the stay is not granted during the present proceedings. 9. That the instant Application is bonafide and in the interest of justice.

24 PRAYER In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned herein above, it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon ble Court may graciously be pleased to:- a) Stay process of counselling to be conducted by the Respondents pursuant to the result of NEET-2017 as declared by the Respondent No.2 herein. b) Stay allocation of Seats/Colleges to the candidates after the counselling conducted by the Respondents pursuant to the result of NEET-2017 as declared by the Respondent No.2 herein. b) Pass such other or further order (s) as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE HUMBLE APPLICANT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY. New Delhi Dated: Through Filed by: Petitioner (M. R. Shamshad) Advocate for the Petitioner D/1349/2000 B-4, {LGF}Jangpura Extension, New Delhi Ph: /

25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI EXTRAORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CM of 2017 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2017 IN THE MATTER OF: Miss. Urvashi Khanna.Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare & Ors AFFIDAVIT Respondents I, Miss. Urvashi Khanna D/o Dr. Vishal Khanna, Aged about 18 years, R/o 4/281, Flat No.F-1, Tulsa Enclave, Parvati Bagla Road, Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:- 1. That I am the Petitioner in the present matter and as such I am fully competent and authorized to swear and depose this affidavit and fully aware of the facts and circumstances of the present case. 2. That I have gone through the content of the accompanying Application for Stay and I say that the facts stated therein are true to my knowledge based on records. VERIFICATION D E P O N E N T I, above named deponent, do hereby verify that contents of the above affidavit are true as per my knowledge and belief and as per the record maintained by the Petitioner and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Verified at Kanpur on day of June, D E P O N E N T

26 VAKALATNAMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Writ Petition(C) NO. OF 2017 IN THE MATTER OF: Urvashi Khanna...Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare & Ors...Respondents KNOW ALL to whom these present shall come that I Urvashi Khanna the above named PETITIONER do hereby appoint; [M.R. SHAMSHAD, RAJAT SINGH & ADITYA SAMADDAR] Advocates for Petitioner B-4 (LGF), Jangpura Extension,New Delhi Ph , (hereinafter called the advocate/s) to be my/our Advocate in the above-note case authorised him To act, appear and plead in the above-noted case in this Court or in any other Court in which the same may tried or heard and also in the appellate Court including High Court subject to fees separately for each court by me/us. To Sign, file, verify and present pleadings, appeals cross-objections or petitions for executions review as revision, withdrawal, compromise or other petitions or affidavits or other documents may be deemed necessary or proper for the prosecution of the said case in all its stages subject to payment of fees for each stage. To file and take back documents, to admit and/or deny the documents of opposite party. To withdraw or compromise the said case or submit to arbitration any differences or disputes that may arise touching or in any manner relating to the said case.to take execution proceedings. To deposit, draw and receive money, cheques, cash and grant receipts hereof and to do all other acts and things which may be necessary to be done for the progress and in the court of the prosecution of the said case. To appoint and instruct any other Legal Practitioner authorising him to exercise the power and authority hereby conferred upon the Advocate whenever he may think fit to do so and to sign the power of attorney on our behalf. And I/We undersigned do hereby agree to ratify and confirm all acts done by the Advocate or his substitute in the matter as my/our own acts, as if done by me/us to all intents and purposes. I/We further undertake that I/we or my/our duly authorised agent would appear in Court on all hearings and will inform the Advocate for appearance when the case is called. And I/we undersigned do hereby agree not to hold the advocate or his substitute responsible for the result of the said case. The adjustment costs whenever ordered by the Court shall be of the Advocate which he shall receive and retain for himself. And I/we the undersigned do hereby agree that in the event of the whole or part of the fee agreed by me/us to be paid to the advocate remaining unpaid he shall be entitled to withdraw from the prosecution of the said case until the same is paid up. The fee settled is only for the above case and above Court. I/we hereby agree that once the fees is paid. I/we will not be entitled for the refund of the same in any case whatsoever and if the case prolongs for more than 3 years the original fee shall be paid again by me/us. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I/we do hereuntoset my/our hand to these presents the contents of which have been understood by me/us on this day of, Accepted subject to the terms of the fees. Advocates Client

27 IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NUMBER 105, THE OPTION MARKED CORRECT BY CBSE IS 1) RB WHILE THE CORRECT ANSWER ACCORDING TO PETITIONER IS 2) LI, 1) CONCISE INORGANIC CHEMISTRY BY J.D. LEE 5TH EDITION COPY ATTACHED WITH THE PETITION WHERE TABLE 9.13 PROVIDES VALUES OF 33.5 FOR LI AND 67.5 FOR RB, THUS VALUE FOR IONIC MOBILITY FOR LI IS LEAST IN AQUEOUS SOLUTION. TEXT 2 PRADEEPS NEW COURSE CHEMISTRY CLASS XI VOL 2 SHOWS A TABLE IONIC MOBILITY OF LI IS 33.5 AND FOR RB IS 67.5, IN AQUEOUS SOLUTION AT INFINITE DILUTION. IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NUMBER 140, THE OPTION MARKED CORRECT BY CBSE IS 4 WHILE ACCORDING TO PETITIONER 3 IS CORRECT ANSWER, THE QUESTION IS HYPOTHETICAL AND LANGUAGE IS AMBIGUOUS LEAVING IT OPEN TO DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS AND NO CLEAR CUT ANSWER IS AVAILABLE IN THE STANDARD TEXT BOOKS. SUCH IMPROPERLY FRAMED QUESTION SHOULD NOT BE ASKED IN A QUALIFYING EXAM WHERE A SINGLE INCORRECT ANSWER HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CHANGE THE FUTURE OF CANDIDATE. NOTE : DEAR SIR, WE WISH TO CONTEST QUESTION NO 105 IN CHEMISTRY AS WE DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THE MARKS AWARDED HAVE BEEN FOR THIS QUESTION ONLY.