09 10.09.2026 Court No.24 pg. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 18973 of 2026 Jayanta Pramanik -versus The Union of India & Ors. Mr. Probal Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate Mr. Md. Alauddin Mondal Ms. Afrin Nehar Mondal … For the petitioner Mr. Narendra Prasad Gupta … For the Union of India Mr. U.S. Menon Mr. Abhirup Chakraborty … For the respondent no.2/NTA 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner in Court today be retained with the records. 2. The facts of the case are recorded in the order dated 12th August, 2026. 3. Today, learned advocate representing the National Testing Agency (NTA) has produced a written communication from the Centre In-Charge, who has retired from service on 30th June, 2026. It appears therefrom that the petitioner was not allowed the compensatory time as he failed to produce the disability certificate at the time of the examination. 4. The public notice issued by the National Testing Agency on 20th June, 2026 publishing the advisory for candidates availing the facility of compensatory time during NEET (UG) 2026 2 Examination scheduled on 21st June, 2026 has been relied upon. It mentions that all basic details, including eligibility of a scribe and/or compensatory time for PwD/PwBD candidates, have been mentioned in the Admit Cards. 5. For the candidates eligible for compensatory time, the Admit Cards indicate ‘Eligibility for Compensatory Time: Yes’. No compensatory time will be granted to any other candidate. Any candidate who has just ‘Y’ written in the Admit Card, will not be entitled to any compensatory time. 6. The Admit Card of the petitioner is annexed to the writ petition. It clearly mentions ‘Y’ in respect of the criteria- eligibility for compensatory time. As per the public notice dated 20th June, 2026, mentioning only ‘Y’ does not make the candidate eligible to avail the compensatory time. 7. The SOP which was published by the authority clearly mentions that the PwD candidates must bring PwD certificate issued by the competent authority if claiming relaxation under the PwD category. 8. In reply to the representation made by the petitioner, he was intimated by e-mail dated 14th July, 2026 that based on the records submitted by him, it appears that no certificate was submitted by the candidate at the time of the examination in the examination centre. 3 9. According to the petitioner, the certificate which has been mentioned in the communication dated 14th July, 2026 is the certificate required to be submitted if the candidate intended to avail the benefit of his scribe. As the petitioner did not require a scribe, accordingly, he did not submit the certificate. 10. According to the petitioner, as he possesses the disability certificate clearly disclosing the benchmark disabilities and he was provided compensatory time in the examination which stood cancelled, he ought to have been provided the compensatory time in the second examination held on 21st June, 2026. By not providing such compensatory time, the valuable right of the petitioner has been infringed. 11. Prayer has been made to direct the respondents to take steps in line with the direction passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Avni Prakash v. National Testing Agency (NTA) & Ors. reported in (2023) 2 SCC 286. 12. The respondents categorically deny the prayer of the petitioner. The marks obtained by the candidate in the previous examination of NEET in which he appeared have been placed. The public notice dated 20th June, 2026 has been relied upon and the important instructions meant for candidates appearing in the NEET (UG) 2026 Examination mentioned in the Admit Cards have also been relied upon. The OMR sheet of the 4 candidate has been produced before this Court in support of the submission that the candidate took a calculated chance to answer the questions. The candidate answered all the questions within the stipulated time period. The respondents assert that the petitioner has not made out any case for taking steps in line with the direction passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Avni Prakash (supra). 13. Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of all the parties and on perusal of the materials on record it appears that, indeed, the petitioner does possess a disability certificate which clearly mentions that he falls under the category of PwD with benchmark disability. The petitioner was allowed compensatory time in his first examination which stood cancelled. 14. The Admit Card in the second examination, however, did not mention ‘Yes’ in the eligibility for compensatory time. The public notice dated 20th June, 2026 categorically mentions that mentioning ‘Y’ will not entitle the candidate to the compensatory time. 15. The petitioner has not made any averment in the writ petition that he produced the disability certificate at the time of the examination and despite production of the same, compensatory time was refused. The general instruction in the Admit Card clearly mentions that the disability certificate has to be produced if the candidate seeks compensatory time. The 5 petitioner ought to have produced the disability certificate to avail the compensatory time. 16. The examination in question is long over. The all-India merit list has been published. It has been informed that the second round of counselling is in progress. 17. The Court is not convinced with the submission of the petitioner that a direction ought to be passed upon the authority for re-consideration of the case of the petitioner for providing compensatory marks for not allowing compensatory time to the petitioner to answer his questions. 18. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the instant case. 19. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. 20. All parties shall act on the basis of a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 21. Certified server copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance of all requisite formalities. (Amrita Sinha, J.)