Authorities must consider correction requests for examination records in accordance with applicable rules, despite applicant-entered errors.

The petitioner’s UGC-NET June 2025 scorecard and JRF certificate recorded his name as “VIKASH” Dwivedi instead of “VIKAS” Dwivedi and his date of birth as 18.11.1998 instead of 18.10.1998.

He contended that the discrepancies resulted from inadvertent errors in the application form and relied upon his Birth Certificate, Class 10th Marksheet and Aadhaar Card as supporting documents.

The respondents maintained that the scorecard and certificate merely reproduced the particulars furnished by the petitioner and further objected to the delay of approximately one year in seeking correction.

The petitioner had submitted a representation dated 09.09.2026 to the National Testing Agency seeking correction, which remained to be decided.

Whether the National Testing Agency was required to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation seeking correction of his name and date of birth in the UGC-NET June 2025 records, after examining the supporting documents and the respondents’ objections.

Whether the petitioner was, at this stage, entitled to a direct judicial order correcting the name and date of birth in the scorecard and JRF certificate.

The Court applied the principle that an administrative authority competent to maintain and correct examination records must consider a properly submitted representation in accordance with the applicable rules, regulations and prescribed procedure, particularly where the claimant relies on documentary evidence supporting the requested correction.

The Court further applied the restraint applicable in writ jurisdiction: where the dispute involves factual verification and administrative scrutiny, the competent authority should ordinarily examine the matter in the first instance rather than the Court determining the issue directly.

The Court noted that the respondents’ contention—that the disputed particulars were supplied by the petitioner himself—did not justify ignoring the pending representation.

At the same time, the Court did not determine whether the Birth Certificate, Class 10th Marksheet and Aadhaar Card conclusively established the petitioner’s correct particulars, or whether correction was legally permissible after issuance of the scorecard and certificate and the lapse of time.

Those matters required examination under the applicable rules by the NTA, including consideration of the petitioner’s documents and any objections raised by the respondents.

Since the petitioner sought administrative correction and the factual verification had not yet been undertaken, the Court considered it inappropriate to grant the substantive correction directly in writ jurisdiction.

The exercise was to be completed within six weeks from receipt of the order, and the decision was to be communicated to the petitioner thereafter.

The Court expressly left the merits of the requested corrections open and directed the competent authority to take an independent decision in accordance with law.