Rajiv Sahai Endlaw JUDGMENT
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
1. The petitioner appeared in the National Eligibility Test (NET) held by the respondent University Grants Commission (UGC) on 29th December, 2013 and has remained unsuccessful therein. It is the case of the petitioner that he remained unsuccessful because in paper I of the said examination, though, the Test Booklet containing questions distributed to him was of Code 'Y' but in the OMR answer sheet of the said Test Booklet, he erroneously shaded the code of his Test Booklet as 'X' instead of 'Y' and as a result whereof his answer sheet was read by the Optical Mark Reader as answering the questions in Test Booklet 'X' and which resulted in his having very low marks in the said paper. It is the case of the petitioner that had his OMR answer sheet been read with the correct Test Booklet Code 'Y', his answers would have been found to be correct, making him successful in the said examination.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondent UGC to re-check his OMR answer sheet of the aforesaid paper, with the correct code.
3. Notice of the petition was issued and pleadings have been completed.
4. I have heard the counsels.
5. The counsel for the petitioner has raised three contentions in support of his claim. Firstly, it is contended that the OMR answer sheet, besides being required to be signed by the candidate, is also required to be signed by the Invigilator under the following endorsement:
"I hereby Certify that I have checked the following information of the Candidate Name, Roll Number, Subject Code, Coordinating Institution and Test Booklet Code of Paper-I".
it is argued that even if the petitioner had committed mistake in shading the wrong code in OMR answer sheet, it was the duty of the Invigilator to have corrected the said mistake and thus, the mistake besides being of the petitioner, was also of the Invigilator appointed by the respondent UGC and the petitioner cannot be penalised for the mistake of the Invigilator. Secondly, it is contended that OMR answer sheet, besides requiring to be shaded at the correct code of the Test Booklet, also bears a number and the mistake should have been detected by the Optical Mark Reader from the said number also and if had been detected, the petitioner again would have been correctly marked. Lastly, it is contended that the machine cannot be allowed to take over the job in entirety and such human error should be permitted to be corrected by human.
6. I am not inclined to, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, grant the relief sought by the petitioner simply for the reason that the examination in which the petitioner had appeared is not a once in a lifetime examination in which the petitioner has lost a chance to appear for ever. It is not in dispute that the said examination is held twice a year. If the petitioner is meritorious, there should not be any doubt in his mind of his ability to clear the same. When, (a) the grievance with which the petition is filed is attributable to the petitioner himself; and, (b) the injury is not irreparable and the petitioner can regain what he has lost owing to his own mistake, the question of invoking Article 226, in my opinion, does not arise.
7. The language of Article 226 shows that the issuing of writs or directions by the Court is founded only on its decision that the right of an aggrieved party has been infringed. The jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked only to protect an existing right and not to confer a new right. Unless a right to the relief claimed is established, no wri........