Talluri Srikar vs NTA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA EXTRA-ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.20243/2024

TALLURI SRIKAR (MINOR) THROUGH HIS FATHER TALLURI SRIKRISHNA …PETITIONER

VERSUS

THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

MANOJ MISRA, J.

1. By this Special Leave Petition, the petitioner seeks leave

to appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court1

dated 09.08.2024, whereby the writ petition2 of the petitioner,

inter alia, seeking a direction to the first respondent to conduct

re-examination of NEET(UG)-2024 for the petitioner, as it did

for 1563 candidates, has been dismissed.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar Date: 2024.09.13 17:23:04 IST 1 Reason: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad 2 Writ Petition No.21897 of 2024

Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20243/2024 Page 1 of 5

2. The case of the petitioner is that he suffers from a

medical condition called ‘Hyperhidrosis’ of palms and soles.

Due to which, his palms sweat profusely. Therefore, to keep

them dry, he needs a piece of cloth, such as a handkerchief, to

wipe off the sweat. According to the petitioner, though he was

allowed to appear in the NEET-2024 examination, he was not

permitted to take his handkerchief inside the examination hall.

As a result, he was extremely inconvenienced and could not

gainfully utilize the allotted time for the examination. It is also

his case that because of that he could not attempt many

questions and even bubbled a wrong digit on the OMR sheet.

He, therefore, prayed that a fresh examination be conducted

for him as was done for 1563 candidates who lost examination

time because of delay in distribution of correct question paper

to them.

3. It appears that in connection with the above grievance,

the petitioner had submitted a representation which stood

rejected by order dated 21.06.2024. The said order was

therefore impugned in the writ petition filed before the High

Court.

Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20243/2024 Page 2 of 5

4. The High Court dismissed the petition upon finding

that full allotted time for giving the examination was provided

to all the candidates including the petitioner at the relevant

examination center; therefore, the case of the petitioner is not

at par with those 1563 candidates for whom a fresh

examination was conducted. The High Court observed that

even if it is assumed that the petitioner was wrongly denied

permission to carry a handkerchief, the same would not have

materially affected his performance in the examination as

sweat on palms could easily be wiped off on the clothes worn

by a person.

5. We have heard the father of the minor petitioner along

with the petitioner, who appeared in person, and perused the

materials on record.

6. The thrust of the submissions was on the negligence of

the security personnel manning the examination center in not

allowing the petitioner to carry a handkerchief inside the

examination hall even though it was not a prohibited item. It

has been argued before us that had the petitioner been

provided the benefit of a handkerchief, his performance would

Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20243/2024 Page 3 of 5 have been a lot better thereby improving his chances for

admission in a college of his choice.

7. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions made, we are of the view that it is not a fit case

for interference for the following reasons:

(a) There is no case that allotted time for giving the

examination was not provided to the petitioner at the

examination center. Thus, the case of the petitioner is

distinguishable from those 1563 candidates for whom

re-examination was conducted because of loss of

examination time on account of delay in distribution

of correct question paper.

(b) In the examination, answers were to be rendered

by darkening blank circles on the OMR sheet. In such

a case, the use of a pen or a pencil is much less than

where answers are to be written. Hence, the view

taken by the High Court that denial of permission to

take a handkerchief inside the examination hall would

not have materially affected petitioner’s performance,

as he could have rubbed his palms on his clothes, is a

plausible view.

Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20243/2024 Page 4 of 5

(c) Courts must be circumspect in entertaining an

individual grievance relating to a Public Examination

as it delays finalization of result thereby seriously

prejudicing larger public interest.

8. For all the reasons above, we find no merit in the

Special Leave Petition. The same is dismissed.

9. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

…………………………………..CJI.

(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud)

..............................................J. (J.B. Pardiwala)

..............................................J. (Manoj Misra)

New Delhi;

September 13, 2024

Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20243/2024 Page 5 of 5