No 'Normalization' for Time Lost in NEET if Candidate's Conduct Contradicts Claims of Panic and Disadvantage: Himachal Pradesh High Court - 2025-07-10

No Relief for NEET Aspirant Despite Time Loss, as Conduct Contradicted Claims of Panic: Himachal Pradesh HC

Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition by a NEET aspirant seeking compensation for time lost due to an invigilator's error, holding that her claims of being disadvantaged were contradicted by her own actions during the exam and her shifting stance. The bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja upheld the findings of an expert Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC), emphasizing that judicial deference is owed to expert bodies and that relief cannot be granted when a candidate's claims are inconsistent with evidence.

The court refused to order "normalization" of marks, noting that the petitioner's subsequent claims of being "frozen in panic" undermined her initial plea that a lack of time was the sole reason for her not attempting more questions.

---

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Garveeta Sharma , appeared for the NEET (UG) 2025 examination. At the start of the exam, she was given a question booklet with an OMR answer sheet that had been vertically torn by an invigilator while opening the sealed packet. She immediately reported the issue. After a delay, a new booklet and OMR sheet were provided to her at 2:14 PM, approximately 14 minutes after the exam officially began. However, she was not allowed to transfer the answers she had already marked on the old question paper, nor was she granted any extra time to compensate for the disruption.

Securing 459 out of 720 marks, Ms. Sharma filed a writ petition arguing that the loss of time—which she estimated at around 30 minutes—and the resulting disturbance prevented her from attempting 30-35 questions. She sought either a normalization of her score or a re-examination.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Arguments: - The primary argument was that the NTA's invigilator was at fault for providing a damaged OMR sheet. - This led to a loss of at least 14 minutes, during which she could not effectively work. - The petitioner claimed this time loss directly impacted her performance, as she was unable to attempt a significant number of questions.

Respondents' (NTA) Arguments: - The NTA admitted the invigilator's error but stated that the petitioner was informed that no extra time would be granted if she insisted on a replacement, a condition she allegedly agreed to. - They pointed out that she completed the exam without protest and signed the OMR collection envelope, indicating her acceptance of the procedure.

Court's Intervention and the Expert Committee Report

The High Court initially acknowledged a loss of "at least 14 minutes" and referred the matter to the NTA's Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) for a detailed review. The GRC, an expert body, examined CCTV footage, the original and replacement OMR sheets, and heard statements from the petitioner and exam officials.

The GRC's findings were crucial and revealed several contradictions in the petitioner's claims:

1. Effective Use of Time: The committee found that in the initial 14 minutes before the booklet was replaced, the petitioner had actively worked on the original paper, ticking 43 questions in the Biology section, of which 40 were correct. This, the committee noted, "strongly suggests that she was neither distracted nor under stress."
2. Shifting Stance: Before the committee, the petitioner changed her story from a 'loss of time' issue to one of 'mental panic'. She claimed she sat "doing nothing, with her hands shaking and my mind blank" during the initial delay and was "frozen in panic" in the final 20 minutes of the exam.
3. Final 17 Minutes: CCTV footage showed that the petitioner made no markings on her OMR sheet in the last 17 minutes of the exam. The GRC concluded this was likely a strategic decision due to negative marking, suggesting she had attempted all questions she was confident in, rather than being "frozen in panic."

The committee's conclusion was that the candidate was not disadvantaged and that the examination process was conducted in a "normal and fair manner."

Court's Final Decision and Reasoning

The High Court accepted the GRC's report, dismissing the petition. The judges highlighted several key reasons for their decision:

Deference to Expert Body: The court reiterated the legal principle of showing deference to the findings of an expert committee, especially when its analysis is thorough and evidence-based.

Contradictory and Shifting Stand: The court pointed out the "complete departure and deviation" in the petitioner's stand. Her initial plea in the writ petition was about loss of time, but before the committee, it became a matter of mental distress. The court observed:

“This Court cannot readily resort to moderation not only because of change of stand by the petitioner and the findings and observations of the Expert Committee, but also in view of the fact that the petitioner admittedly, during the last 17 minutes, had not attempted any question.”

• Impact on Other Candidates: The court noted that ordering moderation or re-examination for one candidate would "definitely affect the others who are not before this Court," upsetting the entire merit list.

Ultimately, the court found no merit in the petition, concluding that despite the initial error by the invigilator, the petitioner failed to prove she was materially disadvantaged. The petition was dismissed.