Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MANASH RANJAN PATHAK, MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
Pritipragnya Mallik – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
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 exami
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.
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.
The submission of forged documents in examination processes can lead to legal action against the candidate, and petitions based on such submissions may be dismissed.
Allegations of examination tampering must be substantiated with credible evidence to establish a legal cause of action for relief.
Disputed questions of fact and elaborate evidence required for adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution.
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.
The court emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence to substantiate claims of manipulation in examination records and upheld the integrity of the examination authority.
Examination authorities must ensure the integrity of examination materials; errors in handling can lead to unjust penalties for candidates.
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
