Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SAMEER JAIN, J.
Neha Kumari Jogi, D/o. Prayag Chand Jogi - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13479 of 2024
Decided On : 21-08-2024
Examination - NEET-UG - Clause 14.2, 14.3, 14.4 - The court upheld the examination rules regarding answer sheet evaluation and the necessity for timely objections, concluding that the petitioner failed to comply with the established procedures.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner contested the scoring of the NEET-UG Examination, claiming an error in marking an answer as incorrect, which led to a lower score than expected. The petitioner argued that the answer was correct according to the final answer key.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not raise objections within the stipulated time and that the evaluation process was transparent and adhered to the established rules, which disallowed re-evaluation of answer sheets.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to a re-evaluation of the answer sheet and if the scoring was conducted in accordance with the examination rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rules governing the examination were clear and that the petitioner failed to comply with the objection process, thus the deduction of marks was justified.
Result: The petition was dismissed.
ORDER :
Sameer Jain, J.
1. The instant petition is filed with the following prayers :
(ii) Any other order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.
(iii) Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner;”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No. 2-NTA issued a public notice dated 09.02.2024 inviting online applications for National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (hereinafter referred as NEET-UG Examination), 2024. It is further submitted that the petitioner filed an online application under the OBC (NCL) category, for the said examination. Thereafter the NEET-UG Examination, 2024 was conducted on 05.05.2024, and the final answer key qua the said examination was released on 26.07.2024 (Annexure-4).
3. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner upon tallying her answer sheet with the final answer key issued by the respondent No. 2, presumed that she shall be scoring 650 marks, however, as per the calculation sheet released by the respondent No. 2 the petitioner scored 645 marks out of the total 720 marks.
4. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards Annexure-3 i.e. the OMR answer sheet of the petitioner, and has submitted that in the question No. 125 the petitioner attempted the choice No. 3 which is also the correct answer as per the final answer key released by the respondent No. 2. In support of the contentions made insofar learned counsel has further submitted that the respondents have deducted 05 marks in the matter in hand, despite the fact that the answer to question number 125 is marked correctly. Hence, grave injustice, and arbitrariness is conducted qua the petitioner.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted the reply during the course of arguments, the same is taken on record.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection, and has submitted that as per the rules and regulations governing the instant examination, more specifically Clause 14.2 and 14.3 of the Information Bulletin, NTA has adopted a scheme of displaying the question paper and recorded responses of the examinees for verification. Further, an opportunity was already provided to the candidates to raise any query/challenge qua the answer key/score card or any other dispute. It is further submitted that the cut-off date for filing of the objection(s) was 29.05.2024. Henceforth, it is evident that the petitioner has failed to raise the query/objection within the prescribed time and therefore, the grievance raised is not tenable at this juncture.
6. The next contention of learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 is that as per Clause 14.4 of the said Information Bulletin, rechecking/re-evaluation of answer sheet is not permissible as answer-sheets are evaluated by machine gradable evaluation system, with utmost care and caution. It is further submitted that National Testing Agency (NTA) is a creation of Ministry of Human Resources Development, and is an independent autonomous body. Moreover, NTA has sustained as a premier organization for conducting efficient, transparent and international standard test evaluation for admissions in higher education institutes.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that as per Clause 3.2 i.e. the pattern of examination (reproduced at page No. 41 of the reply), the necessary notices were duly advertised and were therefore, in due knowledge of every candidate. Further learned counsel has placed reliance upon Annexure R-1 and has submitted th
Adherence to examination instructions is mandatory; deviations such as double bubbling justify evaluation outcomes, and courts should not interfere in such cases.
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.
Examination authorities must ensure the integrity of examination materials; errors in handling can lead to unjust penalties for candidates.
Standardized computerized evaluation process and unambiguous instructions for marking responses in UGC-NET examination.
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.
Presumption in favor of the official record and the consequences of deliberate tampering with official documents.
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.
The court established that candidates must strictly adhere to the instructions for filling OMR sheets, as deviations, even if minor, can result in disqualification, thereby maintaining the integrity ....
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
