IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) NO.21094 OF 2025

An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India

Priyanshi Priyadarshini Dash …. Petitioner

-Versus-

Union of India and others …. Opposite Parties

Advocates appeared in this case:

For Petitioner : Mr. Prabhu Prasanna Behera, Advocate

For Opp. Parties: Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with

Mr. J. Panda, CGC (for O.P. Nos.1 to 3)

Mr. Debasish Hazra, Advocate

(for O.P. No.4)

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

J U D G M E N T

DECIDED ON 19.08.2025

PER MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.

The Petitioner-student is grieving before this Court

regarding her result in the National Eligibility-Cum-

Entrance Test [NEET (UG)], for admission to Undergraduate Medical Courses pursuant to the notice dated 07.02.2025.

2. It is submitted that there is some discrepancy in the result published by the NEET. It is alleged that ‘two results’ have been published, one on the date of publication i.e. 14.06.2025 and there has been a subsequent notification where the rank of the Petitioner has been changed to her detriment.

3. We directed by our order dated 30.07.2025 the learned DSGI “to obtain instruction and produce records as would be necessary for effective adjudication of the matter. The record shall be kept ready in a sealed cover”.

On 14.08.2025 the learned DSGI along with the learned Senior Panel Counsel and learned Central Government Counsel ensured presence of Shri Binod Kumar Sahu, Director, Legal, National Testing Agency, Ministry of Education, Government of India, New Delhi. On the said date considering intricate and high-end technicalities involved in the matter, we heard the Director in detail regarding the method of conducting the examination by the NTA, the safety measures, security measures, transparency and the best practices followed for evaluation and ensuring integrity of the examination.

4. At paragraph-5 of the writ petition the following has been stated by the petitioner: -

“5. That further as per the notification, the exam was held on 04.05.2025. Further the petitioner humbly submits that, after appearing in the examination on dated 04.05.2025 her hopes were high as she did very well in the examination and was expecting good qualifying marks basing on her performance in the aforesaid NEET (UG) Examination 2025 she would get herself admitted in the top medical colleges of India. True to her hopes when the answer key was declared on the official website of NTA i.e. 0pp. Party No. 2 and the petitioner on matching the answer key vis-a-vis the Question Paper provided by 0pp. party No.2 on the date of the examination, the petitioner was assured that, she will not be securing less that 550 marks in the said examination. The Copy of the question paper is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE- 3.”

5. The learned DSGI and Mr. Panda, learned CGC produced the print out of the e-mail copy sent by the ‘neet.nta.nic.in’ in the e-mail ID of the petitioner ‘dpriyanshi03@gmail.com’; also produced is the answer sheet of the petitioner-Priyanshi Priyadarshini Dash indicating answer sheet i.e. OMR sheet which is a coloured photocopy of the original copy, that contains the details like Test Booklet number, time of examination, father’s name, mother’s name, signature of the invigilators (name) and candidate’s signature and thumb impression.

6. Since several litigations are pending before this Court with the kind of allegation: that initially, the “mark published/send by e-mail is very high”, but the “subsequent” mark is very less, we decided to interact at some length with the Officer present in Court on behalf of the NTA, more for the reason; to be assured as a Constitutional Court that the examination system is honest, transparent, maintains its integrity and not vulnerable to interference/tampering by unscrupulous elements adopting unethical means with ulterior motives. The Officer present has explained in detail various standard operating procedur