Mr. Ajay Kumar and Mr. Nirmal Kishore, Advs v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY ORS

$~77 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7189/2025 & CM APPL. 32373/2025 DHRUVIL KEYUR PANDYA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar and Mr. Nirmal Kishore, Advs. versus NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava and Mr. Aditya Kumar, Advs. for R-1/NTA. Mr. Arjun Mitra, Adv. for R-3/NIT Rourkela. Mr. S. K. Rout, SPC for UOI with Mr. Aman Mehrotra, Mr. Rahul Kumar, Mr. Amit Acharya, GP with Ms. Alka Singh and Ms. Parmita Nath, Advs. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN O R D E R % 30.05.2025 1. The present petition has been filed assailing the score card [Annexure P-9] whereby the result of the petitioner in JEE (Main), for both Sessions I and II, has been mentioned as “UFM” and he has further been debarred for the academic sessions 2025-26 and 2026-27. 2. Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner appeared in Session I and II of JEE (Main) 2025 which were held on 23.01.2025 and 02.04.2025, respectively. The score card with regard to Session I exam uploaded by the respondent no.1/NTA, which was viewed and downloaded by petitioner on 20.02.2025, showed total percentile of petitioner to be 89.49152364 for Session I whereas the score card which was This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 20:26:32 seen on 28.02.2025, indicates percentile of 55.392599 for Session I. 3. He submits that the above discrepancy was brought to the notice of respondent no.1/NTA by the petitioner by writing an e-mail on 28.02.2025. In response to the said e-mail of petitioner, the respondent no.1/NTA sent an e-mail dated 13.03.2025 stating that the matter will be placed before JEE (Main) UFM Committee for their necessary action as per records. 4. He submits that thereafter nothing was heard from respondent no.1/NTA. The petitioner then appeared for the JEE (Main) Session II on 02.04.2025 and result of the same was declared on the intervening night of 18th and 19th April, 2025. The impugned scored card, however, showed petitioner‟s result as „UFM‟ and score card also contained the remarks “debarred for 2025-26 and 2026-27”. 5. The petitioner again took up the matter with the respondent no.1/NTA and sent an email dated 19.04.2025 stating that there seems to be mistake in the assessment of petitioner‟s result and there has been no dishonest method used during the examination which can be proved by the Invigilators. 6. The petitioner also made an application dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P-11) under the RTI stating that respondent no.1/NTA has not been issued any reason or proof but directly debarred him from writing the test in 2025-26 and 2026-27 besides withholding his result for the JEE (Main) – 2025, which he had taken. The petitioner did not get any response to RTI application. However, he received an e-mail from respondent no.1/NTA on 17.05.2025 [Annexure P-14] asking petitioner to download his score card from the official website of NTA which is the final score card on basis of the response key. 7. Mr. Kumar, submits that petitioner using the response key tried to This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 20:26:32 open the score card but it still showed UFM. Sequel thereto, petitioner received another e-mail dated 18.05.2025 [Annexure P-16] informing him that the issue raised by petitioner has been brought to the notice of Committee and at the stage of post exam analysis, petitioner has been highlighted using “Unfair Means” during the examination and accordingly, the score card mentioned the UFM. In the said e-mail reference was made to paragraph 5.5 of the Information Bulletin JEE (Main) 2025. 8. Mr. Kumar submits that before taking extreme step of classifying the result of the petitioner as „UFM‟ and debarring him from taking exams for 2025-26 and 2026-27, no show cause notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, the decision intimated to the petitioner vide impugned final score card issued on 18.04.2025 [Annexure P-9] is violative of the principles of natural justice. 9. On a query posed by the Court, Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1/NTA fairly states that no show cause notice has been given to petitioner before taking the decision as indicated in the impugned score card [Annexure P-9]. She, however, contends that the respondent no.1 is ready to comply with the principles of natural justice. 10. Having heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that since the allegation of using unfair means is serious and further the decision as indicated in the impugned score card has the effect of not only withholding result of the petitioner for the JEE (Main) -2025 [Session I and II, both] but also debarring him from taking further exams for two academic sessions 2025-26 and 2026-27, inevitably the said decision has civil consequences, therefore, the respondent no.1/NTA ought to have given a show cause notice to the petitioner before taking This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 20:26:32 impugned decision. Not giving show cause notice entails in infraction of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned score card [Annexure P-9] cannot be legally sustained. 11. The petition is thus, allowed. Resultantly, the impugned score card [Annexure P-9] is quashed and set aside. Concomitantly, the respondent no.1/NTA is directed to declare results of the petitioner forthwith. However, respondent no.1/NTA is at liberty to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law, if so advised. 12. The petition, alongwith pending application(s), is disposed of in the above terms. VIKAS MAHAJAN, J MAY 30, 2025/dss