Calcutta High Court

MAT/1560/2026 of JAYANTA PRAMANIK Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS on 18 September 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

Item No.4 pk MAT 1560 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 Jayanta Pramanik Vs. The Union of India and others Mr. Anirban Bose, Mr. Alauddin Mondal, Ms. Afrin Nahar Mondal ...for the appellant. Mr. U. S. Menon, Mr. Abhirup Chakraborty … for the respondent no. 2. 1. Affidavit of service

18.09.2026

Court No.13

Item No.4

pk

MAT 1560 of 2026

CAN 1 of 2026

CAN 2 of 2026

Jayanta Pramanik

Vs.

The Union of India and others

Mr. Anirban Bose,

Mr. Alauddin Mondal,

Ms. Afrin Nahar Mondal

...for the appellant.

Mr. U. S. Menon,

Mr. Abhirup Chakraborty

… for the respondent no. 2.

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

1. Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record.

2. The appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 10.09.2026 passed by the Single Bench in WPA 18973 of 2026.

3. The case of the writ petitioner before the Single Bench was that he participated in NEET examination conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA) initially on 20th June, 2026 where he was allowed extra time upon production of a bench mark disability certificate indicating disability to extent of 40 per cent. The said examination was cancelled for various reasons.

4. In re-examination held one month later the petitioner as in the earlier examination did not opt for a scribe. He sought extra time on the ground that he suffered 40 per cent disability which is the bench mark disability.

2 He could not and did not produce such disability certificate before the invigilator in course of examination. He was, therefore, rightly not allowed the extra time of one hour.

5. It appears from the order of the Single Bench that the petitioner in any way completed and answered all the questions in the OMR mark sheet.

6. A person who claims the benefit of a disability in any process or examination is required to produce such certificate for availing any special benefit afforded to disabled candidates. Not having done so, the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right that he ought to have been allowed extra time of one hour.

7. In the light of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.09.2026 passed by a Single Bench of this Court in WPA 18973 of 2026.

8. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected pending applications being CAN 1 of 2026 and CAN 2 of 2026 are also dismissed.

9. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)

(Anuj Singh, J.)

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead