SC paves way for declaration of NEET results, stays HC order

SC paves way for declaration of NEET results, stays HC order

SC paves way for declaration of NEET results, stays HC order

The Supreme Court opened the way for the declaration of the results of a national examination that determines the fate of some 12 lakh students seeking to join medical and dental colleges across the country.
The apex court suspended the provisional order of May 24, the Supreme Court of Madras that had barred the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) published the results of the national selection and entry test (NEET) 2017.
The court of first instance declared that it was willing to grant a suspension of the order of the superior courts that indirectly “diluyait” the NEET 2017 calendar previously defined by the cut of the apex.
A bank comprising the Pant P C holidays and judges Deepak Gupta ordered the competent authorities to carry out the announcement of the results, recommendations and subsequent admission in accordance with the schedule established by the apex cut.
However, the court said that the statement of results and advice and subsequent admission until 2017 NEET would be subject to the decision of the apex court in the event that awaited him.
It also asked the High Courts not to introduce exceptions regarding NEET 2017.
“On the ground, we are inclined to suspend the order of the high court. The indirectly, this order is to dilute the schedule set by the Supreme Court,” said the banquet when the summer holidays are viewed after the hearings.
The court took note of Deputy Attorney General (ASG) allegations, Maninder Singh, appearing by CBSE and other petitioners who challenged the May 24 order, as it was against the spirit of the apex cut order in Which the NEET 2017 calendar has been set.
“Taking into account the above, the provisional order is suspended and the competent authorities were asked to go further with the return result for the NEET examination held on May 7, 2017, subject to the decision of this court,” said the court .
When Singh told the court that several higher courts had the means to challenge NEET issues, the court “asked” the higher courts not to hear requests for a bretel award in the NEET-related business conducted on 7 May , 2017.
The higher court granted on May 24, an interim stay on the publication of the NEET results in a lot of ways that claim a matter of uniform issues was not given to the applicants and that there was not a big difference between the English and Tamil.
The highest court also issued notices to respondents, who had filed the petition in the Supreme Court of Madras in the forms presented by the CBSE and others.
During the arguments, Singh said that the NEET 2017 exam was conducted by the CBSE and this year, in addition to English and Hindi, the essay was conducted in eight regional languages ​​as directed by the apex cut.
He said that around 10.5 lakh aspirants had given the test in English or Hindi as 1.30 lakh-1.50 lakh had opted for the regional languages.
The English and Hindi test papers were the same, but the questions were different in newspapers for other languages, he said, but he felt that the level of “difficulty” was the same in all documents.
“There was a consistency in the degree of difficulty of the questions,” he said, adding that this had also been certified by experts.
Referring to the leak of the NEET broadcast in 2015, Singh said that if newspapers in regional languages ​​have leaked this year, about 12 lakh aspirants must have appeared in a reexamination.
He said the CBSE was declaring the results on June 8, but due to the higher court order, the admission process was blocked.

The CBSE had filed June 9, the Supreme Court requesting an immediate stay of the order of the Supreme Court of Madras.
The Board had also requested the transfer of Neet 2017 petitions several instances higher than the apex court.
The plaintiffs before the Supreme Court demanded that NEET 2017 be canceled and that a re-examination with a standard questionnaire takes place.
It had been argued that the different sets of questionnaires had been used in several places, although a joint program was announced.