Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:40765-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4027 of 2025 Ku. Amisha Gupta D/o Anand Gupta Aged About 21 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Village- Pasupatipur, Wadrafnagar, Balrampur District- Balrampur (C.G.) versus ... Petitioner 1 - Union of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Department Of Medical Education 109-C, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001 2 - National Testing Agency (Nta) Through Its Director General, Nta (Ex- Officio), First Floor, Nsicmdbp Building, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110020 3 - National Medical Commission Through Its Chairman, Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka, Phase-1, New Delhi-110077 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
9. We find that by doing so the petitioner has unnecessarily wasted the precious time of the Court as well as that of the respondents. Though such conduct of the petitioner is sought to be explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner as an outcome of pressure, we would not like to go deeper into this aspect of the matter, as the petitioner is a student and the medical aspirant. 10. Accordingly by holding that the respondent/NTA was justified in awarding 37 marks to the petitioner, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is a candidate, we do not put burden on her family, we refrain from imposing any cost. 11.
Arguments
: Mr. Sanjay Agrawal and Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocates For Respondent/UOI : Mr. Ramakant Misrha, D.S.G.I. For Respondent NTA : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. S.S. Marhas, Advocate on behalf of R.S. Marhas, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy.A.G. 2 Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13/08/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filled for following reliefs:- “10.1 This, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records 10.2 This, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash (Annexure P-1) issued by NTA/National Test Agency. 10.3 This, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities including National Test Agency (NTA) to correct the result (Annexure P-9) of the petitioner restoring it to the original position i.e., of 506 out of 720, (Annexure P-7) 10.4 This, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to initiate inquiry against the concerned respondent for reducing the marks of the petitioner in her scorecard (Annexure P-1) 10.5 This, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to keep one post vacant for the petitioner in National Level Counseling NEET UG schedule-2025 till the final outcome of this writ petition. 10.6 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to impose cost on the respondent/ NTA/National Test Agency and compensation may be granted to the petitioner. 10.7 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 2. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a bright student pursuing her future for medical profession on account of which 3 she started preparing for NEET (National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test) examinations which was to be held on 04/05/2025. The petitioner filled the form for the NEET (National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test) exams after which admit card was issued to the petitioner bearing Roll No. 1701202063 with application number 250410728947. The petitioner appeared in the NEET exam, the invigilator gave the OMR (Optical Mark Recognition) sheet to the petitioner as the petitioner was given Test Booklet with code 47 therefore the petitioner as per her booklet filled the same number in her OMR sheet. After the exam the Respondent/ NTA issued provisional answer key for NEET (UG) 2025, the petitioner revaluated the answer key with her attempted questions and she came to the conclusion that she might attain overall marks above 500 out of 720. That on 14/06/2025 the National Test Agency (NTA) declared the result/scorecard for the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (UG) in which the petitioner attained total 506 marks out of 720. The respondents after declaring the result of NEET issued notification for counseling NEET UG schedule -2025 for All India Quota/ Deemed/ Central State Quota. The petitioner after acquiring her result/scorecard initiated steps for entering counseling round for which registration is mandatory as the candidate acquiring marks less than 100 is not legible for participating in the counseling round, the petitioner acquiring 506 marks in the exams opted for registration but in the portal she was dined for registration as her marks showed 37 out of 720. The 4 petitioner was astonished when she downloaded her result which showed 37 marks out of 720, on account of which she e-mailed (Annexure P-1) the concerned authority about the error in her result as in the original scorecard she received 506 marks out of 720 but when she downloaded her result for the second time marks of the petitioner was reduced to 37 out of 720 which is malafide on the part of the respondent/ National Test Agency (NTA), but the authority taking it casually replied to the contention of the petitioner that the marks are checked by machine generated and there is no provision of revaluation/rechecking, therefore, they cannot help the petitioner. Thus, the petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not new for attempting NEET (UG) she has given her fourth round of NEET (UG). The respondent/ National Test Agency (NTA) has wrongly uploaded the incorrect scorecard (Annexure P-1) as she obtained 506 marks out of 720 whereby when she opted for registration but in the portal she was dined for registration as her marks showed 37 out of 720 which is mala fide action and needs to be corrected. Learned counsel would further submit that the conduct of the NTA lack of transparency is evident from the scorecard issued by them and changing the marks of the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submission. Learned counsel for the NTA would categorically submit that the NTA conducted the NEET UG 2025 in a fair and 5 transparent manner and proper precautions have been taken. He would submit that on completion of the said examination, the OMR sheets of the respective candidate have duly been sent to their mail IDs. He would submit that on due scrutiny of the OMR sheets, the NTA has rightly awarded 37 marks to the candidate. So far as the allegation of the petitioner that she has secured 506 marks out of 720 is concerned, learned counsel would submit that the score card has been sent to the candidates by mentioning the IP address of the system. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present petition is misuse of process of law, hence, the same may be dismissed with cost. In support of the contention, learned counsel would place reliance upon the judgments of various High Courts. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 6. On the last date of hearing, this Court vide order dated 08/08/2025, the respondent No.2 was directed to produce the OMR sheet of the petitioner. 7. Pursuant to the said order, the NTA produced the OMR sheet before this Court. The same has been shown to the petitioner and her guardian as also to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of her. After seeing the same, they have not disputed the OMR sheet and the blue print produced by the NTA. 8. On bare perusal of the documents placed before this Court and the original OMR sheet produced by the NTA, it appears that it is 6 a clear case that the petitioner by relying on concocted documents and pleading has sought to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India.
Decision
Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Gowri/ Amardeep