Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 23354
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Aryan Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
National Testing Agency – Respondent
WPC No. 3949 of 2026
Important Points
Subject
Civil - Education Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Alternative Remedy - Exhaustion of Grievance Redressal Mechanism - A petitioner cannot bypass the prescribed administrative grievance redressal forum provided by the examining authority to directly invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Para 11, 16)
(C) Judicial Precedent - Interim Orders - An interim order directing the production of documents in a specific case does not constitute a binding legal principle or precedent for other cases. (Para 19)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to the production of the original OMR sheet and re-evaluation based on alleged tampering without exhausting the available alternative grievance redressal mechanism.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Gautam Khetrapal
For the Respondents: P.R. Patankar
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner alleges omr tampering in neet exam based on discrepancies between booklet and scanned sheet. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments on tampering vs. failure to exhaust alternative administrative remedies. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. subjective suspicion without cogent evidence is insufficient for judicial interference in exam results. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. requirement to exhaust grievance redressal mechanisms to maintain examination sanctity. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. interim orders are not binding precedents for final adjudication of rights. (Para 19) |
| 6. petition dismissed for lack of merit and failure to establish illegality. (Para 20 , 21) |
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
1. Heard Mr.Gautam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.P.R.Patankar, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1t o 4.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records of the case from the respondent no. 1.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing the respondents to supply/provide the original OMR sheet of petitioner of NEET (UG) Examination-2026 to the petitioner, forthwith.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to award proper marks to the petitioner according to his original OMR sheet of NEET (UG) Examination-2026.
10.4 Any other relief deemed fit in the present facts and circumstances of this case may also be awarded to the petitioner.”
3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is a bright and meritorious student, having secured 93.83% marks in the Class-X Examination and 80.20% marks in the Class-XII Examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). Copies of the mark sheets of Class-X and Class-XII have been filed along with the petition. The petitioner intended to pursue admission to the MBBS course and, therefore, applied for the NEET (UG)-2026 Examination. Initially, the examination scheduled to be conducted was cancelled on account of the alleged paper leak. Thereafter, the examination was rescheduled, and the petitioner again submitted his online application form to appear in the rescheduled NEET (UG)-2026 Examination.
4. Pursuant thereto, the respondent authorities issued an admit card in favour of the petitioner for appearing in the NEET (UG)- 2026 Examination, which was conducted on 21.06.2026. The petitioner was allotted Roll No. 1701105387 and an examination centre at Government V.Y.T. Post Graduate Autonomous College, G.E. Road, Near Raipur Naka, District Durg. On the scheduled date, the petitioner appeared in the examination and was allotted Test Booklet Code-70, comprising 32 pages, bearing SUSHRUT No. 265041739. After completion of the examination, the respondent authorities published the final answer key and uploaded the scanned OMR sheets of the candidates. Upon downloading and scrutinizing his scanned OMR sheet, the petitioner found that although the booklet number, roll number and signatures appearing on the OMR sheet were his own, the answers reflected therein were materially different from those actually marked by him during the examination. On comparison of the answers recorded in the question booklet with those reflected in the scanned OMR sheet, the petitioner noticed several glaring discrepancies.
5. By way of illustration, for Question No. 1, the petitioner had marked Option (4) in the question booklet, which also corresponds with the correct answer as per the final answer key. However, the scanned OMR sheet uploaded by the respondent authorities reflects Option (1) as having been marked. Likewise, for Question No. 2, the petitioner had marked Option (2), which is also the correct answer according to the final answer key, whereas the scanned OMR sheet records Option (4). Similarly, for Question No. 3, the petitioner had marked
