Back
L. NAGESWARA RAO, B. R. GAVAI
National Testing Agency – Appellant
Versus
Vaishanavi Vijay Bhopale – Respondent
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
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
