Bombay High Court denies relief to B.Tech student over discrepancy in MHT-CET scorecard

Bombay High Court denies relief to B.Tech student over discrepancy in MHT-CET scorecard The Bench directed the MHT-CET Cell to investigate the matter and submit a report.

Key points

• While the actual scorecard available with the MHT-CET indicated marks of 7.8474707 and 13.5482364, the first scorecard indicated marks of 78.874707 and 73.5482364 in both attempts.
• The Bench directed the MHT-CET Cell to investigate the matter and submit a report.
• Advocates Sameer Khedekar and Mayuri Andhale represented the MHT-CET.
• According to The court, any attempt to manipulate marks, percentiles, or scorecards affects the foundation of the admission process.
• The court remarked, Competition for admission to professional courses may be intense.

Meanwhile, the Bombay High Court has refused to grant relief to a student whose provisional admission to a B.Tech course was cancelled after the university discovered discrepancies in his scorecard.

Meanwhile, a Division Bench of Justice Riyaz Chagla and Justice Farhan Dubash dismissed the petition filed by Shubham Vijay Mangire against the State of Maharashtra and the Maharashtra Health and Technical Common Entrance Test (MHT-CET) Cell.

According to The court, the mark sheet submitted by the student to MHT-Word Peace University (WPU) in Pune demonstrated a higher percentile than the scorecard available on the MHT-CET portal. The Bench directed the MHT-CET Cell to investigate the matter and submit a report.

In its report, the MHT-CET Cell stated that the scorecards submitted by the student were not generated by the CET Cell and appeared to have been tampered with or fabricated. While the actual scorecard available with the MHT-CET indicated marks of 7.8474707 and 13.5482364, the first scorecard indicated marks of 78.874707 and 73.5482364 in both attempts.

According to The Bench, an examination conducted for determining merit and allocating educational opportunities depends on the integrity of the examination process and the authenticity of documents produced by candidates.

For context, the court remarked, "Competition for admission to professional courses may be intense. The anxiety of a student to secure admission and the disappointment that may follow upon obtaining a particular result are understandable. What cannot be countenanced is the adoption of impermissible means to overcome the consequences of an examination result. No admission can justify manipulation of an examination record."

In practice, the Bench clarified that its observations were confined to the authenticity of the scorecards and the petitioner's entitlement to relief. According to The court, nothing in the order should be construed as a finding that the petitioner had committed any criminal offence or as precluding any criminal proceedings against him.

For context, the court discovered the facts of the case to be concerning and observed that such conduct in admissions to professional courses should not be left unchecked. The Bench dismissed the plea and refused to interfere with the university's decision to cancel the student's provisional admission.

Advocate Sandeep Pathak appeared for the petitioner. Advocates Sameer Khedekar and Mayuri Andhale represented the MHT-CET. Assistant Administration Pleader Savina Crasto represented the State.

Taken together, the developments around bombay High Court denies relief to B.Tech student over discrepancy in MHT point to a situation that is still moving, and the coming days should bring more clarity.