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.

JUDGMENT

Anil L. Pansare, J. - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has put forth following substantive prayer:

''(i) Order respondents to make available correct score card showing 514 marks out of 720 in substitution to incorrect score card for NEET (UG) exam. 2022 showing 166 marks by respondent no.2 referred vide Annexure P-2.''

3. The petitioner appeared in the NEET (UG) Examination 2022 from Indo Public School, Mardi Road, Amravati Centre on 17.07.2022. According to the petitioner, the answer key was made available by the respondent no.3 on website on 31.08.2022. The petitioner made assessment of her own and found that she has correctly answered 133 questions and incorrectly answered 18 questions and that her expected score is 514 marks. Thereafter, result came to be notified on 07.09.2022 by the respondent no.3. The petitioner was allotted 166 marks as against her expectation of 514 marks. She, therefore, sought clarification by pointing out the alleged error committed by the respondent no.3. The clarification was sought on e-mail. According to the petitioner, the reply sent along with answer sheet was the same as was made available by respondent no.3, which tallies with answer sheet that was available on website. The petitioner made a request to correct the marks but there was no response and hence the present petition.

4. Respondent no.3 has filed affidavit in reply mentioning therein that the answer sheets are specially designed machine gradable sheets named as 'OMR' answer sheet. The candidates are required to answer the question by darkening only one circle against each question. The invigilator concerned distributed test booklet and OMR answer sheets which bear the same booklet number and code to the candidates. The candidates were instructed to sign the attendance sheet on receiving the test booklet and the OMR after verifying that the two numbers and the codes are same. The invigilator also has to counter-sign the attendance sheet on handing over the documents to the candidate. The candidates themselves fill their roll number and test booklet number inside the box and mark/bubble the digits accordingly on the OMR/answer sheet. The OMR/answer sheet consist of declaration that such a candidate has signed and confirmed her thumb impression. The same process has been followed in the case of the petitioner and that therefore the petitioner has appended her signature twice on the attendance sheet and the same is counter-signed by the invigilator as per the guidelines. It follows that the petitioner has marked her response only on one OMR/ answer sheet which is then evaluated for the purpose of declaration of the result. As per the record, the petitioner has attempted 51 answers correctly and 38 incorrectly and ultimately secured 166 marks out of 720 and not 514 marks as alleged.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made an attempt to impress upon the Court that answer sheet has been manipulated, fabricated and tampered. He has referred to the answer sheet Annexure P-1, filed along with the petition. In support, he has drawn our attention to the rejoinder, wherein the grounds to substantiate allegations are made in the following terms:

''1(A) Shape of thumb in Annexure P-1 is of vertically elongated shape whereas thumb impression in Annexure R-II, is of oval nature.

(B) Right side responses in Section A & B does not counter fit with each other and round impression at serial No.127 in Annexure P-1 exactly counter fits with distorted impression in Annexure R-II. So coincidence in this behalf is objectionable.

(C) Response no.171(3), there is line in the circle in Annexure P-1 which fully exists in Annexure R-II response no.171(3) though attempt for question No.171 exist in Annexure P-1 whereas not in Annexure R-II.

(D) Annexure P-1 is sent by eMail from nta.neet.nic2022result@gmail.com about which stand of Respondent No.3 is silent without makin