Back
Dismisses NEET-UG OMR Plea After Candidate Verifies Signature
In a swift and pragmatic resolution, the has dismissed a filed by a NEET-UG candidate who sought a comparison between her original physical OMR answer sheet and the scanned version uploaded on the official portal. The dismissal came after the candidate herself verified that the signatures on both documents were hers, effectively putting an end to the controversy.
The division bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla, hearing the matter on , directed the Assistant Director of the ) to produce the original OMR sheet in a sealed envelope. Upon examination, the court asked the candidate to verify her signature appearing on the document. She admitted that the signatures on both the physical and uploaded OMR sheets were indeed hers, leading the bench to conclude that no further issues remained to be adjudicated.
Background of the Discrepancy
The petitioner, Anvi Rajoriya, had appeared in the NEET-UG 2026 examination with the expectation of improving upon the 449 marks she secured in the 2025 edition. However, on , upon checking the OMR answer sheet uploaded on the ’s official portal, she allegedly noticed several serious discrepancies. According to the petition, the roll number reflected on the uploaded OMR sheet was incorrect, the booklet number differed, and several answers shown did not correspond with those she had actually marked during the examination.
Alarmed by these alleged irregularities, the candidate approached the and communicated her concerns but claimed no response was forthcoming. The situation escalated when the declared her result on , awarding her only 292 marks—a significant drop from her previous score. Convinced that the uploaded OMR sheet was not a true copy of her original answer sheet, she issued a legal notice demanding production of the original OMR sheet for verification.
Court’s Directive and Production of OMR Sheet
When the matter was first listed before the division bench, the petitioner’s counsel,
, submitted that the core issue was
"whether the physical OMR sheet is identical to the digital OMR sheet which has been uploaded by respondents in the reference column of ERP or not."
He further stated that if the physical and digital sheets were found to be identical, there would be no issues left to argue on.
Taking this submission on record, the court directed the Assistant Director of the to personally appear before the bench with the candidate’s original OMR sheet in a sealed envelope. The court’s intervention was aimed at resolving the factual dispute at the earliest stage, without requiring extensive evidentiary proceedings.
Candidate’s Admission and Resolution
When the original OMR sheet was produced in court, the bench asked the candidate to verify her signature appearing on the document. After careful inspection, the candidate admitted that the signatures on both the physical and uploaded OMR sheets were hers. This admission effectively resolved the primary controversy—the authenticity of the uploaded sheet.
The bench then observed:
"Since the controversy with regard to the correctness of the OMR sheet uploaded by the respondents has been resolved by production of the original OMR sheet and verification of the same by the petitioner herself, therefore, nothing survives to be decided in this . Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed."
The order was pronounced in open court, and the petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. represented the .
Legal Implications for Examination Disputes
This case highlights a crucial procedural mechanism for candidates who suspect discrepancies in their OMR sheets. The High Court’s approach—directly producing the original document for verification—sets a precedent for of similar disputes. By permitting the candidate to personally inspect the physical OMR sheet, the court ensured transparency and reduced the scope for prolonged litigation.
Legal experts note that such verification can serve as a . If the candidate confirms the authenticity of the document, the case collapses; if discrepancies remain, the court can proceed to examine deeper issues. This approach balances the need for speedy justice with the rigour required in examination disputes, which often involve high stakes for students.
The decision also underscores the importance of maintaining clear for examination material. The ’s ability to produce the original sealed OMR sheet without any claim of loss or tampering bolstered its case. Had the agency failed to produce the document, the court might have drawn an .
Broader Impact on Procedures
For the National Testing Agency, this ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of accurate digitization and secure preservation of answer sheets. While the successfully defended the petition, the allegations of multiple discrepancies—roll number, booklet number, and answer mismatches—suggest systemic vulnerabilities. The agency may need to strengthen its quality control processes for scanning and uploading OMR sheets, perhaps by introducing real-time candidate verification of uploaded sheets before results are announced.
Candidates, on the other hand, should be aware that —such as signature or handwriting comparison—can conclusively resolve disputes. Mere allegations of discrepancies without independent evidence may not sustain a petition, especially if the original document is available and verified.
Conclusion
The ’s dismissal of Anvi Rajoriya’s petition underscores the judiciary’s preference for fact-driven resolution in examination disputes. By relying on the candidate’s own verification of her signature, the court avoided unnecessary evidentiary hearings and reaffirmed the principle that does not require endless litigation when the core factual issue is resolved.
For the legal community, the case offers a useful template for handling similar OMR-related grievances. It demonstrates that courts are willing to intervene promptly to ensure transparency, but only as long as there remains a . Once the candidate confirms the , the legal foundation for the challenge crumbles.
As the NEET-UG admission cycle progresses, this judgment may encourage more candidates to seek preliminary verification from the before resorting to court. It also signals that courts will not entertain once the official record is authenticated.
