E-Paper
CAT 2024: Delhi High Court dismisses plea challenging CAT 2024 results, says ‘we find no reason to interfere’
IIM Calcutta represented by senior advocate Arvind Nayyar had contended that the objections were already considered by the expert committee.
The Delhi high court on Tuesday dismissed a plea challenging the results of the Common Admission Test (CAT) 2024 for admission to Indian Institutes of Management (IIM’s) and other business schools, saying that there was no reason to interfere with the same.
“In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the results of CAT. The petition is accordingly dismissed,” justice Tara Vitasta Ganju said while pronouncing the verdict.
CAT Result 2024 Declared: 1 girl, 13 boys scored 100 percentile
The court passed the order while responding to a plea filed by one of the candidates – Aditya Kumar Mallick, who had appeared in the exam alleging that there was an unaccounted error in the answer key, which had affected his result. His plea went on to add that he had though raised objection to the provisional answer key which was released on December 3, the final answer key was released without any change and the results were declared by IIM Calcutta, that had organised the exam, hurriedly on December 19. “The result was expected in the second week of January, 2025 and the haste in declaring the results in December speaks volume,” the plea added.
Delhi HC refuses to entertain Puja Khedkar’s appeal against UPSC action
Mallick’s plea also stated that his objection was supported by distinguished experts and faculty members of various CAT coaching centres.
IIM Calcutta represented by senior advocate Arvind Nayyar had contended that the objections were already considered by the expert committee.
Delhi HC divison bench refuses to stay single bench order asking CNLU to announce revised results
While hearing the matter on January 3, Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju had observed that judicial intervention in competitive exams is generally limited to cases involving substantial errors. The Court said that it could not intervene in such disputes unless there were specific and compelling circumstances.
(With inputs from Shruti Kakkar.)
