Calcutta High Court
WPA/18301/2026 of RIZA SAFA (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER YEASIN ALI Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. on 30 July 2026
2026 Item no.D/L 03 Court No. 24 Pradip, A.R.(Ct.) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Case No. WPA 18301 of 2026 In the matter of : Riza Safa (Minor) …. Petitioner VS. The Union of India & Ors. ….Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr.
30TH JULY, 2026
Item no.D/L 03
Court No. 24
Pradip, A.R.(Ct.)
In the High Court at Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Case No.
WPA 18301 of 2026
In the matter of:
Riza Safa (Minor)
…. Petitioner
VS.
The Union of India & Ors.
….Respondents
For the Petitioner:
Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee
Ms. Sima Ghosh
Mr. Saptarshi Chakraborty
Ms. Babita Pramanik
….Advocates
For the Union of India:
Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta
Mr. Madan Mohan Roy
….Advocates
For the NTA:
Mr. U.S. Menon
Mr. Abhirup Chakraborty
….Advocates
Citations and Judicial Treatment
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…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard the submissions made on behalf of both the parties.
2. Learned advocate representing the petitioner tries to impress the Court that there has been error in evaluating the answer sheet of the petitioner. It has been submitted that questions which have not been attempted by the petitioner appears to have been shaded in the OMR. It is also the case that the questions attempted by the petitioner were not shaded in the OMR.
3. According to the petitioner, there are forty three questions which has been marked in the OMR. The test booklet with the attempted answers is also annexed.
4. On a perusal of the test booklet annexed to the writ petition and the OMR produced by the learned advocate representing NTA, it
Page 2
appears that the petitioner has made several scratches in the test booklet. The petitioner was not very confident or sure at the time of shading. May be that is the reason as to why there is a mismatch between the answers which she thought was correct and marked in the test booklet but not shaded properly in the OMR.
5. The petitioner pleaded in the writ petition that she was not able to view her OMR. According to the authority, the OMR was duly available for viewing on the scheduled dates. The candidate may have deliberately not annexed the OMR with the writ petition to justify her case.
6. Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and on perusal of the documents placed before this Court, prayer of the petitioner seeking for a direction upon NTA to produce the original OMR before the Court cannot be accepted.
7. The representation of the petitioner annexed at Page-56 of the writ petition which is alleged not to have been responded to by the authority appears to have answered as the photocopy of the scanned copy of the OMR has been produced by the learned counsel representing NTA in Court. Copy of which has been handed over to the learned advocate for the petitioner.
8. In view of the above, there is no reason to interfere in the instant writ petition. The writ petition fails, and is hereby dismissed.
9. Parties to act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
10. Certified copy of the server copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Amrita Sinha, J.)