Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
SAMEER JAIN
Roshan Yadav D/o Shri Ramji Lal Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, through the Secretary, New Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. scope of the controversy in neet-ug examination. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments from petitioners regarding examination irregularities and need for remedy. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. arguments from respondents contesting claims of petitioners. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court observations on examination conduct and candidate performance. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. final decision on the dismissal of petitions. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the scope of the controversy involved, albeit not limited to but is broadly and predominantly defined by the challenge raised regarding the NEET-UG Exam, 2025 conducted on all India basis by the respondent – National Testing Agency (NTA) on 04.05.2025 wherein, due to power failure/outrage, adverse weather conditions of storm and rain; jumbled and non-sequential question booklet; irregular/delayed time shown by the wall clock in the examination rooms and failure to ensure fairness, transparency and equal opportunity during the said examination. Consequently, considering the fact that the writ petitions warrant adjudication on common questions of law and fact; wi
The examination authority is not liable for minor grievances raised by a negligible number of candidates, especially in force majeure situations, as these do not impact the overall integrity of a nat....
The absence of a discernible impact from brief power outages during an examination does not warrant re-examination, ensuring a level playing field for all candidates is upheld.
Brief power outages during examinations, if adequately managed, do not warrant re-examination unless they substantially disrupt the exam process or show malice.
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.
(1) Cancellation of an examination, either for the purposes of gaining admission into professional and other courses or for the purpose of recruitment to a government post, is justified only in cases....
Legal principles around the application of normalization formulas for compensatory marking in examinations must consider distinct procedural contexts.
Courts should refrain from intervening in factual disputes in writ petitions and should only annul/cancel competitive exams with sufficient evidence of misconduct or negligence.
Fairness in examination protocols mandates that interruptions affecting a candidate's performance must be addressed through compensatory measures such as grace marks or re-examinations.
National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (UG) 2024 – Leakage of question paper – No student who is revealed to have engaged in acts of fraud or to have been beneficiary of malpractice would be entitled....
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
