HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1137 of 2010 (M/S) Priyanka Jindal. ……..Petitioner Versus tate of Uttarakhand and others. …….Respondents S Mr. Dushyant Mainali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State, Mr. Shailendra Naudiyal, Advocate for respondent no.2, Mrs. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate for respondent no.4. Dated: July 8, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned scorecard of the petitioner dated 17.06.2010 published by the respondent no.2 on its website and annexed at annuxure-2 of the writ petition, ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent nos. 2 & 3 to allow the petitioner to participate in the counseling of UPMT 2010 with her category ranking as 34 which was declared on the scorecard of the petitioner published on 10.06.2010, iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.4 to initiate an inquiry against respondent no.2 for this whole scam and unfair conducting of UPMT examination, 2010, iv. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1, 3 & 4 to declare respondent no.2 incompetent and defunct to conduct such important examination like UPMT, v. Pass any further suitable writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case, vi. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner. 2. Briefly stated that the petitioner appeared in the examination of Uttarakhand Pre Medical Test-2010 2 conducted by Uttarakhand Technical University/ respondent no.2 held on 26.05.2010. The result whereof was declared on 10.06.2010 on the website of respondent no.2, in which the petitioner scored 139 marks with the category rank of 34. It is asserted in the petition that on 17.06.2010 a subsequent scorecard/final result was published at the website of the respondent no.2 in which petitioner’s category ranking was shown as 278. It is stated in the petition that reduction in the ranking of the petitioner will badly affect her career prospects and the petitioner will not be able to attain admission in better college/institution. It is further stated that ranking of any candidate in the merit list shall be decided on the basis of the marks obtained by him/her in the question papers of Physics, Chemistry, Botany and Zoology. 3. I have heard Mr. Dushyant Mainali, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State, Mr. Shailendra Naudiyal, Advocate for respondent no.2, Mrs. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate for respondent no.4 and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the UPMT-2010 examinations were held, the respondent no.2 issued a provisional scorecard on its website on 10th June, 2010 in which rank of the petitioner was shown as 34th but in the subsequent scorecard/ final result published at the website of the respondent no.2 on 17th June, 2010 petitioner’s category ranking was shown as 278th. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that by reducing the ranking of the petitioner from 34 to 278, her prospects of getting admission in a better Medical College has badly been affected. He submitted 3 that in Chapter I at clause Cha of the prospectus of UPMT-2010 issued by the respondents it was specifically provided that answers and the result finalized by the evaluation committee of UPMT-2010 shall be full and final, therefore the category rank of the petitioner cannot be reduced from 34 to 278. He argued that the action of the respondent no.2 is violative of regulations prescribed by the Medical Council of India and are in direct negation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however admitted that so far the marks obtained by the petitioner are concerned, there appears no illegality on the part of the respondents and the petitioner has rightly been awarded 139 marks out of 200 marks in the written examination. 5. At this, Mr. Shailendra Naudiyal, Advocate for respondent no.2 contended that the marks awarded to the petitioner have not been changed in any manner, but in fact, correct rank has not been mentioned in the provisional scorecard. Same was corrected subsequently, hence there is no illegality committed by the respondent no.2 in issuing the final result whereby the petitioner has been placed at 278th category rank. He further submitted that the petitioner has scored 139 marks out of 200 and the answers sheets were evaluated through computer thus, there is no chance of any kind of error in this mode of evaluation. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that directions may be issued to the respondent no. 2 & 3 to allow the petitioner to participate in the counseling of UPMT 2010 with her category ranking as 34 which was 4 declared on the scorecard of the petitioner published on 10.06.2010. 7. In the foregoing facts and circumstances, and in view of the fact that there is no change in petitioner’s scorecard i.e. 139 such directions cannot be issued. It is known to everybody that admissions are always made on the basis of the merit of the concerned candidate and in the present case there is no change in the marks obtained by the petitioner. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. 9. The interim relief application (CLMA No. 5346/10) also stands dismissed. (V.K. Bist, J.) 08.07.2010 NCM: