The court affirmed that the integrity of official examination records is paramount, and claims based on discrepancies without credible evidence are insufficient to challenge the results.

JUDGMENT :

MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.

The petitioner appeared in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (Undergraduate) [NEET (U.G.)], 2025-26 for admission to undergraduate M.B.B.S. course. By filing the writ petition she seeks interference of this Court to declare her successful in the examination.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner extensively, particularly on 22.09.2025 for the entire day of Court hours. The learned DSGI, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for opposite parties were heard at length in their response. The Director, Legal National Testing Agency (NTA) was present in person and also through V.C. mode and assisted the Court in response to the specific queries of the Court on different dates of hearing.

The Writ Petition and submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner and discussions by the Court

3. It is suggested in the petition that there is some discrepancy in the application number of the petitioner and after much effort she has been able to find out her result, marks secured to be ‘Zero’ in her NEET U.G. 2025-26 for admission to undergraduate MBBS Course.

4. The Optical Mark Reader Answer Sheet (OMR Sheet) of the petitioner, in the examination appeared by the petitioner was produced in original, kept in sealed cover, by the opposite parties No.1 to 3. The sealed cover was opened, and the contents were perused by us.

5. The original OMR answer sheet has the following distinct features, it contains the Bar Code, contains one of the Biometric indicators i.e. the left thumb impression of the candidate (petitioner), signature of the petitioner along with time of putting the signature, name of the petitioner written herself in her own handwriting, her mother’s name handwritten by her and her father's name handwritten by her, signature of the two invigilators in the exam hall with time. The roll number has been written by the petitioner herself in her own handwriting and also the text booklet number in her handwriting. The pen used by the petitioner in black ink. The entries made look to be identical to the naked eye for all the entries made by her in her handwriting. The Bar Code and the answer-sheet number has been written in hand by the petitioner which matches with the answer-sheet number.

6. Considering the fact that the petitioner may have been motivated in making allegations as she is very young, appearing at a very tough competitive entrance examination; before considering the discrepancies in the documents relied on by the petitioner annexed to the writ petition and the originals produced by opposite parties 1 to 3 and 4, we have asked the learned counsel for the petitioner that the original OMR Sheet as we have seen after opening the sealed cover does not match with Annexure-4 suggested by the petitioner to be her OMR Sheet. However, learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that the copy of OMR sheet, copy annexed as Annexure-4 is correct and actual and not the original one produced in sealed cover by the opposite parties no.2 and 3-NTA before the Court.

7. Referring to Annexure-4, the following has been stated in the writ petition: -

“3.(c). It is permitted to mention here that the Petitioner downloaded the OMR sheet and final Answer key for Test Book Code No.46 on 02.06.2025. Result was published on 14.06.2025. The Petitioner has secured total 576 marks, out of total 720 marks.

Copy of the OMR Sheet along with final answer, is filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-4.

Copy of the Score Card, is filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-5.” (sic)

8. Before proceeding to take up the matter, we had asked the learned counsel for the petitioner for her response to our prima facie finding that copies of correct documents have not been annexed. In response, she replied that she is not being given any opportunity to respond. Obviously, she grossly misunderstood the proposition of the Court that since we will be considering the matter on merit regarding various acts of commission involving a you