[NEET 2022] NTA cannot refuse grace marks to SC student; State bound to protect interests of SC/STs: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently said that the State was bound by the Constitution to promote the educational interests of those belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) communities and to protect them from social injustice [T Udhaykumar v. Union of India and ors]. .A Bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Krishnakumar directed the National Testing Agency (NTA), which organises the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), to award four marks to an SC student who had chosen not to answer a multiple choice question after realising that the question was erroneous. The order stated,"...the State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, especially Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from social injustice. Therefore, the second respondent being instrumentality of the State cannot refuse to award the four marks to the appellant who belongs to the weaker section of the society.".The petitioner had lost out on securing the minimum cut-off marks by just one mark. He argued that had he been awarded the grace marks, he too would have cleared the NEET exam for the current academic session.Counsel for NAT told the High Court that the multiple choice question number 97 in the said exam was indeed erroneous, as neither of the four choices provided were the correct answer. However, NAT had decided to give the four grace marks to only those examinees who had chosen any one of the incorrect answers. The petitioner had not attempted the said question, and had hence lost out on the grace marks, it was submitted..The petitioner's counsel, however, argued that a student should not be penalised for an error made by the authorities. The Court agreed with this submission, adding that Article 46 of the Constitution mandated that the State protect the interests of the downtrodden, particularly those belonging to the SC/ST community. .The NTA also opposed the plea on the ground that the petitioner had filed a previous writ petition that was withdrawn after the NTA said that grace marks will only be allotted to those who had attempted the said question. At the time, however, the counsel did not take the Court's leave or seek liberty to file a second plea. Therefore, the present plea was not maintainable, the NTA argued.The petitioner, however, said that his previous counsel was not aware of the proper legal procedure. He argued that it was a settled legal position that an innocent litigant cannot be held liable for the mistakes of his lawyer. The High Court agreed, noting that the petitioner had made several representations to the NTA and the Union Ministry of Human Resource Development, and had approached the Court without any delay."Therefore, on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, since the authorities concerned have not responded to the grievance of the appellant/writ petitioner, accepting the bona fide reasons, in the light of the settled legal position that a litigant should not suffer for the fault committed by the Advocate, as the appellant who is aspiring to pursue the medical course during the academic year 2022-23, we are inclined to entertain the writ appeal," the Bench said.It thus directed the NTA to award four grace marks to the petitioner and to revise its merit list to include his name among those eligible to attend the counselling session. .Advocates R Sankarasubbu and Ilayaraja Kanthasamy appeared for the petitioner. Advocate K Ramamoorthy represented the Central government, Senior Advocate G Rajagopalan and Advocate Sunitakumari appeared for NTA, Advocate R Anitha for the Tamil Nadu government and Advocate M Sneha for the Directorate of Medical Education..[Read Judgment]