Rajasthan High Court: In a writ petition seeking a revision of petitioner’s score and rank in NEET-UG Examination 2024 conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA), a single-judge bench of Sameer Jain, J., upheld the NTA’s decision to deduct 5 marks from the petitioner’s score and dismissed the petition as being devoid of merit.
In the instant matter, the petitioner appeared for the NEET-UG Examination 2024, conducted by the NTA on 05-05-2024. She applied under the OBC (NCL) category. After the examination, the petitioner tallied her answers with the final answer key and expected to score 650 marks. However, the NTA’s calculation showed that she had scored 645 marks. The petitioner claimed that she had correctly answered Question No. 125, but the NTA deducted 5 marks, leading to her lower score
The petitioner argued that she had correctly answered Question No. 125 and that the deduction of 5 marks by the NTA was unjustified. However, the NTA argued that the petitioner had not raised any objections within the prescribed period (before 29-05-2024), as required by the rules. The NTA contended that re-evaluation of answer sheets is not permissible under Clause 14.4 of the Information Bulletin because the OMR answer sheets are evaluated by a machine-readable system with minimal human intervention. The NTA further argued that the petitioner had darkened two circles for Question No. 125, which, as per the instructions, disqualified the answer and warranted the deduction of marks.
The Court examined Clause 14.2 and 14.3 of the Information Bulletin allows the candidates to raise objections to the answer key within a specified period and Clause 14.4 of the Information Bulletin prohibits rechecking or re-evaluation of answer sheets, and stated that the “re-evaluation of answer sheet is not permissible”. Moreover, the same has been “categorically mentioned in the instructions qua the said examination”.
The Court held that the NTA had maintained transparency in the examination process by electronically evaluating the OMR answer sheets, thereby, ensuring minimum human intervention, and the petitioner’s failure to comply with the rules and instructions justified the deduction of marks. The Court stated that when the OMR Sheet is read electronically, any mistake committed by the candidate, would be detected and the same is thereafter not evaluated.
The Court also emphasised that allowing re-evaluation or modification of the answer sheet after the examination would undermine the integrity and credibility of the process. The Court relied Jitendra Sharma v. State of Rajasthan,1 where the Division bench of this Court had reinforced the importance of adhering to examination rules and the consequences of any discrepancies in following instructions.
The Court dismissed the petition, citing the following reasons:
-
The petitioner failed to raise any objections within the prescribed time frame.
-
Re-evaluation of the answer sheet was not permissible under the rules.
-
The petitioner’s answer to Question No. 125 was disqualified because she had darkened two circles, which violated the examination instructions.
[Neha Kumari Jogi v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 2687, Decided on 21-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Dinesh Garg, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Devesh Yadav (IGPC) with Mr. Rajat Sharma, Mr. M. S. Raghav and Mr. Viswas Saini, Counsel for the Respondents
1. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 73/2021, decided on 2.2.2021
