File writ petition in HC against new rule
2) rule could not have retrospective operation
Regading neer 17
Sir , without any notification just before filling form and 2017 neet exam , cbse declares that students will be allowed for 3 attempts counting the previous one. Many students who got admission previously could not afford pvt college therefore prepared themself to appear again in 17 neet.suddenly they make rule just before exam.what is fault of parent or students.they should have intimated before.because there was never such law during last 70 years.the law should be counted from this year only.but not.at this age where shall the students go.grave injustice.students are bared from education .this type of law is nowhere in the world.one can do mbbs or bds any time. Secondly in 2014 and 2015 there was aipmt where only 7 to 8 states participated.rest states did there own entrance text.in 2016 all states participated. Now students of the states who went with aipmt are not allowed because they have 3 attempts but students from other states who not go with aipmt are allowed and given one more chance 2018. Why this grave injustice to aipmt students . 60 percent students allowed rest kicked away for no fault of theirs. When the exam appearing age is 25 why only 3 attempts allowed.the age limit should be 20 years.grave injustice and partiality. What to do sir
Asked 7 years ago in Constitutional Law
First answer received in 30 minutes.
Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.
3 Answers
This is the rule changes made by the CBSE which would not take into account the individual difficulty of a student.
However that does not mean that their actions can not be challenged if there is arbitrariness and mala fide intentions this change.
In other words if you are aggrieved by this change and there is reason to believe that it is not based on sound principles then you can challenge this change by way if filing wirit petition in high court.
This is a matter of government policy.
The government should have sought a referendum.
The aggrieved may approach high court with a writ petition or supreme court with SLP against this ruling.
The success rate may not be good, but if you are still aggrieved and want to get clarified through court of law, all like minded people can gather and file a writ of SLP in this regard invoking appropriate article of the constitution seeking remedy and relief.
