The petitioner contends that the decision to order a fresh examination is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, particularly when there is no allegation of malpractice affecting all candidates. The plea also seeks a direction to refund the examination fee if the re-test is ultimately conducted.
Legal Provisions Invoked by the Petitioner :-
Article 14 of the Constitution of India
The principal challenge is founded on Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. The petitioner argues that compelling all candidates to reappear, irrespective of whether they were affected by the alleged irregularity, amounts to arbitrary State action.
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
The petition has been filed under Article 226, invoking the Delhi High Court's writ jurisdiction to judicially review the decision of the NTA and to examine whether the administrative action satisfies the tests of legality, fairness, and reasonableness.
Principles of Administrative Law
The petitioner also relies on settled principles governing administrative action, asserting that: administrative decisions must not be arbitrary or irrational;
State authorities must act fairly and reasonably;
any decision affecting a large class of candidates must be supported by a rational basis and comply with the doctrine of non-arbitrariness, which forms part of Article 14 jurisprudence.
Proceedings Before the Court
Taking note of the challenge, the Delhi High Court issued notice to the NTA and the Union of India, directing them to file their response. The matter is presently pending, and the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petition.
Why It Matters
The case is significant for lakhs of competitive examination aspirants as it concerns the extent of judicial review over decisions to conduct re-tests. The High Court's eventual ruling may clarify the standards that testing agencies must satisfy before cancelling or re-conducting examinations, particularly where allegations of irregularities do not uniformly affect all candidates.