IMPORTANT POINT
Adherence to examination instructions is mandatory; deviations such as double bubbling justify evaluation outcomes, and courts should not interfere in such cases.

ORDER :

Ramesh Sinha, CJ.

1. Heard Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Anmol Sharma, learned Central Government Counsel for respondent No.1, Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondents No.3 & 4 as well as Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, Standing Counsel for respondent No.5

2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 to re-evaluate the OMR sheet and allot the correct marks for question no. 141 as per answer key dated 31.05.2024.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the incorrect evaluation of Question no. 141 carried out by Respondent no.2.

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as deemed necessary as deem fit.”

3. Brief facts of the present case, are that, this is the second round of Litigation. Earlier, the petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing WPC No.3015/2024 with a grievance that the petitioner has attempted 180 questions, out of which, the petitioner has wronged only three questions, but marks for one question which has been rightly answered has not been granted. When WPC N?.3015/2024 came up for hearing on 21.06.2024, the counsel for the National Testing Agency (for short, “NTA”) has handed over the evaluation sheet of the petitioner, which revealed that petitioner has been rightly awarded the mark for question No.11, but no numbers have been awarded for question no. 141 and one number has been detected for not attempting the answer, as the evaluation sheet is showing (-); whereas the petitioner has rightly attempted the question no. 141 and circled the 'b' option, which is correct option as per the answer key.

4. The Hon'ble Apex Court was also seized with the issue with regard to the mass cheating and various other lacunas in conduct of NEET UG examination bearing Writ Petition (Civil) 335 of 2024, wherein vide order dated 15.07.2024, notices were issued in Transfer Petition (Civil) 1741/2024 preferred by the NTA. WPC No.3015/2024 again came up for hearing on 16.07.2024, wherein it was informed by the counsel for respondent-NTA that all matters relating to NEET UG 2024 has to be transferred and listed with Writ Petition (Civil) 335 of 2024, which was sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, subsequently, the matter was transferred vide order dated 16.07.2024 of this Court.

5. The arguments were closed in Writ Petition (Civil) 335 of 2024 on 22.07.2024 and the order was delivered on 22.07.2024 by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in which, Hon'ble Apex Court has only considered the submissions on whether the sanctity of NEET UG 2024 examination has been compromised or not and has made it clear that individual grievances will be looked by the appropriate forum; meaning thereby, that though the petition preferred by the petitioner bearing WPC No.3015/2024, was tagged but no hearing on merits could take place, and since the petitioner's grievance is individual grievance, and therefore, her grievance can be looked by this Court only under Article 226 jurisdiction.

6. Respondent No.2 has declared the result of NEET-UG 2024 and the present petitioner scored 696/720 marks and secured 2664 rank. A comparison of the OMR answer sheet of the petitioner with the evaluation sheet would reveal that, petitioner has attempted total 180 questions, out of which, petitioner gave right answer to 141 i.e. circled 'b' option and gave wrong answer to 3 questions and the marks which were to be awarded to the petitioner should be 701, but she has been awarded only 696 marks (as question no. 141 has been marked as wrong answer).

7. Thereafter, the petitioner has made the representation for correction of marks but of no avail. The respondent-NTA has still not paid any attention to the representations alr