Back
DINESH MEHTA
Gourav Paliwal S/o Shri Meghraj Paliwal – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi – Respondent
ORDER :
Dinesh Mehta, J.
1. The petitioner before this Court is desirous of becoming a Doctor submitted form for appearing in National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (UG), 2024 Examination (hereinafter referred to as ‘NEET (UG)’). The petitioner was allotted Roll No.3904290073, Test Booklet/OMR Answer Sheet No.7796689 and Test Booklet Code Q6 at Examination Centre: St. Anne’s Sr. Sec. School, Sector-B, Saraswati Nagar, Basni, Jodhpur.
2. The Examinations were held on 05.05.2024. According to the petitioner, when he was supplied Test Booklet, it was torn from middle and not only all the pages even the OMR sheet had two-three cuts due to use of scissors in the process of opening the packet containing the Test Booklet. The petitioner has asserted that on receipt of such booklet, he requested the invigilator to change the booklet but no heed was paid.
3. On 29.05.2024, the provisional answer key was published by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and objections were invited. The petitioner raised grievance on the grievance portal of the respondents through e-mail dated 31.05.2024 and highlighted that his question paper and OMR sheet got cut by the scissor, which was used for opening the packet cont
Examination authorities must ensure the integrity of examination materials; errors in handling can lead to unjust penalties for candidates.
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.
The Court held that the original OMR sheet produced by the 2nd respondent was the only one mark sheet of the petitioner and there was no discrepancy in the documents produced by the respondents.
Adherence to examination instructions is mandatory; deviations such as double bubbling justify evaluation outcomes, and courts should not interfere in such cases.
Standardized computerized evaluation process and unambiguous instructions for marking responses in UGC-NET examination.
Allegations of examination tampering must be substantiated with credible evidence to establish a legal cause of action for relief.
The evaluation undertaken by the examining bodies should not be viewed with suspicion unless it is prima facie established that it was not fair or transparent.
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
