SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI, JJ.
National Testing Agency – Appellant
Versus
Vaishanavi Vijay Bhopale & Ors. - Respondent
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).17027 of 2021
Decided on : 12-11-2021
NEET - Examination Mix-up - The court considered the mix-up in the distribution of answer sheets and test booklets during the NEET examination, the subsequent request for re-examination, and the decision to not conduct a re-examination for the affected candidates.
Fact of the Case:
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 reported a mix-up in the distribution of question papers and answer booklets during the NEET (UG) Examination. They requested a re-examination, which was initially directed by the High Court but later set aside by the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court sympathized with the affected candidates but found it difficult to direct a re-examination for them alone, ultimately setting aside the High Court's direction for re-examination.
Issues: Mix-up in distribution of answer sheets and test booklets, request for re-examination, and the court's authority to direct re-examination for specific candidates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the acknowledgment of the mix-up, the candidates' attempt under stress, and the difficulty in directing re-examination for specific candidates.
Final Decision: The Special Leave Petition was disposed of, and the direction for re-examination for the affected candidates was set aside.
ORDER :
1. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay seeking a direction to the petitioner to re-examine them by conducting a separate NEET examination before the declaration of results for admission to undergraduate medical courses for the academic year 2021-2022. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared in NEET (UG) Examination conducted on 12.09.2021 and were in the same room. At the time of distribution of the question papers and the answer booklet, there was a mix up and different booklets and answer sheets which did not match the code were given to them. As per the instructions to the students, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 reported the mix up between the answer sheet and the booklet to the invigilators. The invigilators did not rectify the mistake pointed out by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and within the short time that was left, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 answered as many questions as they could. Pursuant to order dated 07.10.2021 passed by the High Court in the writ petition filed by respondent 1 and 2, a suggestion was made on behalf of the appellant that the answer key shall be implemented for scoring/evaluation of the 6 candidates in whose cases there was a mix up in distribution of the test booklet code and OMR sheet as per the sequence of questions given in the test booklet code as attempted by them.
2. On 20.10.2021, the High Court disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner to hold a fresh examination for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and declare the results within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has filed this Special Leave Petition.
3. On 28.10.2021, this Court stayed the impugned judgment of the High Court till further orders. On that day, we requested the Ld. Solicitor General of India to suggest the course of action to be adopted in respect of respondent Nos.1 and 2 who have suffered due to the fault of the invigilators.
4. We are informed that the results of NEET UG 2021-2022 have been announced. The Ld. Solicitor General submitted that the answer sheets of respondent Nos.1 and 2 have been corrected on the basis of the suggestion that was given by the petitioner to the High Court. Without insisting on the test booklet code and OMR sheets being different, the answers given by the petitioners have been evaluated. He submitted that a fresh examination to be conducted for respondent Nos.1 and 2 as directed by the High Court would set a bad precedent. Another candidate has approached the High Court and the writ petition is pending. Mr. Sudhanshu Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 relied upon the order of the High Court to submit that undisputedly, there was an error committed by the invigilators in distribution of the paper booklet and the answer sheets. After having accepted that there was a mistake committed by the invigilator, respondent Nos.1 and 2 who have an excellent academic record should not be made to suffer. The attempt made by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 within the limited time that was available to them was under severe stress. He requested that this Court should not interfere with the direction given by the High Court to the petitioner to conduct a fresh examination for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
5. There is no dispute that there was a mix up in distribution of the answer sheets and the test booklet where the code is different. Realising that a wrong answer given to a question would attract negative marks and also relying upon the instructions given to the candidates, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 pointed out to the invigilators that the correct answer sheet with a proper code has to be provided to them.
6. We have perused the answer sheets of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the marks given to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from the material furnished by the learned Solicitor General on 28.10.2021. They have attempted most of the questions. No negative marks have been given to them. We find substance in the
The court has the authority to set aside a direction for re-examination, even when acknowledging the candidates' difficult circumstances.
Examination authorities must ensure the integrity of examination materials; errors in handling can lead to unjust penalties for candidates.
Court is to presume the correctness of answer key and proceed on that assumption. In the event of any doubt, benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.
The court's decision emphasized the need for the petitioner to seek redressal through the appropriate forum, declining to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Allegations of examination tampering must be substantiated with credible evidence to establish a legal cause of action for relief.
The unsubstantiated nature of beliefs and lack of evidence are insufficient to establish a valid cause of action in seeking reliefs through a writ petition.
Adherence to examination instructions is mandatory; deviations such as double bubbling justify evaluation outcomes, and courts should not interfere in such cases.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.