IMPORTANT POINT
Examination authorities must ensure the integrity of examination materials; errors in handling can lead to unjust penalties for candidates.

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 containing the question paper booklets. The grievance as raised by the petitioner (through e-mail dated 31.05.2024) is reproduced hereunder:-

“I wish to bring out in your notice that on the day of my NEET-UG examination at my examination centre due to the mistake of invigilators my question paper as well as OMR sheet was cut by them from scissors and these marks are still present on my question paper and I am also sharing the photos of the same in attached file.

I objected there and also requested to change the question paper as well as OMR sheet but they denied to do so, now when the OMR sheet is uploaded by you than I came to know that OMR READER is considering 1 wrong answers in my sheet for the question number 38 which was even not attempted by me. That is due to mark present on OMR sheet during the cutting of papers from scissors.

I humbly request you to check my question number 38 manually so that it will clear for you that it wasn’t attempt by me and kindly do not deduct negative mark for that question as it wasn’t attempt by me.

Waiting for kind and prompt response.”

4. The petitioner’s grievance was not considered by the respondent No.2 for which the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. The petitioner has placed on record his original question booklet so also a photocopy of his OMR sheet in order to substantiate his stand that both of them were torn.

5. On perusal of the test paper booklet, this Court noticed mark of scissor or some other sharp tool, due to which a hole or mark can be seen right through the question booklet.

6. On 16.08.2024, the respondents were directed to produce original OMR sheet of the petitioner with a view to ascertain as to whether the assertion of impression/cutting as made by the petitioner is correct or not.

7. Today, the original OMR sheet of the petitioner has been produced for perusal of the Court. On perusal thereof, this Court finds that OMR sheet is torn in the middle and there is a small hole/cutting/defacing in front of option No.3 of question No.38, as claimed by the petitioner.

8. The first page of answer booklet of the petitioner has another tiny hole just beneath the term ^yxkus* of point No.4 of ^egRoiw.kZ funsZ'k* , which has traversed down towards option Nos.3 and 4 of the question No.38 of the OMR sheet.

9. The photocopy of petitioner’s copy of the OMR sheet (page No.126 of the paper book) contains a small stain/impression in the circle or bubble meant for option No.3 of question No.38.

10. According to the petitioner, he did not attempt question No.38 and had attempted other 10 questions being question Nos. 36, 37, 39, 41, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49 and 50.

11. The petitioner has taken a plea that since he had not at all attempted question No.38, negative marks could not have been awarded qua such ques