Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:40766-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4225 of 2025 Bhumika Sharma D/o Vishnudutt Sharma Aged About 22 Years R/o Gandhi Chowk, Ruabandha, Ward No. 54, Civic Centre, Bhilai, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) versus ... Petitioner 1 - Union of India Through Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, 127-C, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 2 - National Testing Agency Through Director General, First Floor, Nsic- Mdbp Building, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi. 3 - National Medical Commission Through Chairperson, National Medical Commission, Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka Phase-1, New Delhi. 4 - Medical Counselling Committee Through Directorate General Of Health Services, Room Number 354, Dghs Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, Delhi. ... Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
9. We find that by doing so the petitioner has unnecessarily wasted 6 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
Arguments
For Petitioner For Respondent/UOI For Respondent NTA : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. S.S. Marhas, Advocate on behalf of : Mr. Jashraj Singh, Advocate : Mr. Ramakant Misrha, D.S.G.I. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge R.S. Marhas, Advocate. Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 13/08/2025 2 1. The present writ petition has been filled for following reliefs:- “A. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to declare and provide the correct OMR sheet of the Petitioner reflecting the actual marks obtained by her and further permit her to present her candidature for the counselling process. B. To issue an appropriate order quashing the second OMR sheet/result published by the Respondent No. 2 reflecting 100 marks obtained by the petitioner. C. To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No. 1 to conduct an enquiry on the present matter of issuance of two OMR sheets of the Petitioner. D. Any other relief(s) in favor of Petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Case of the petitioner is that she appeared for the NEET UG 2025 examination on 04.05.2025. Upon the announcement of results on 14.06.2025, her initial scorecard displayed 466 out of 720 marks. However, her own calculation, verified against the official answer key and her OMR sheet, indicated a score of 476 out of 720 marks. Aggrieved by this discrepancy, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the NTA. The NTA, after re-evaluating her OMR sheet, acknowledged the discrepancy and updated her scorecard to 476 out of 720 marks, confirming her qualification as the qualifying marks were 144 out of 720. Despite being clearly eligible for the first round of counselling, the Petitioner was arbitrarily declared ineligible. Upon persistent inquiry and a visit to 3 the NTA office, officials startlingly stated that her score was only 100 out of 720 marks. Subsequently, the NTA provided a second, impugned computerised OMR sheet and result, which depicted completely different answers while retaining all of the Petitioner's original identifying details, including her name, roll number, test booklet number, test booklet code, and signatures. According to the petitioner, she is profoundly aggrieved by these fluctuating and inconsistent results. Thus, the petition. 3. (i) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the action of the Respondent No. 2 (NTA) is manifestly arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable, violating the fundamental principles of fairness and natural justice. The fluctuation in the Petitioner's scores from 466 to 476 and then drastically to 100, alongside the issuance of two contradictory OMR sheets for the same examination, demonstrates a complete lack of diligence and integrity in the examination process. The Respondent No. 2, as a premier national testing agency, has a solemn public duty to conduct examinations transparently, accurately, and consistently. Its failure to provide a stable and accurate result, leading to multiple conflicting scores and OMR sheets, is a gross dereliction of its statutory and public obligations. (ii) Learned counsel would further submit that the issuance of a second OMR sheet and result which depicts answers "completely different" from the previous verified OMR sheet, while retaining identical personal and examination details, is fundamentally 4 flawed and indicative of a serious systemic error or mismanagement on the part of the NTA. This impugned document cannot be allowed to stand. The Petitioner was officially informed of her updated and qualified score of 476 out of 720 marks by the NTA itself. Her subsequent denial of participation in MCC counselling, based on a purported score of 100 marks which emerged much later and without proper justification, is discriminatory and violative of her legitimate expectation to pursue medical education. The NTA's inability to provide a swift, clear, and consistent explanation for these grave discrepancies, even after direct representation by the Petitioner, underscores its lack of transparency and accountability, thereby causing immense mental agony and uncertainty to the Petitioner. He would submit that refusal to rectify the Petitioner's score accurately will result in the irreparable loss of a crucial academic year for the Petitioner, a consequence entirely attributable to the negligence and arbitrary conduct of the Respondent No. 2. 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 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 100 marks to the candidate. 5 So far as the allegation of the petitioner that she has secured 476 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 12/08/2025, the respondent No.2 was directed to produce the OMR sheets along with its blue print of the petitioner. 7. Pursuant to the said order, the NTA produced the OMR sheet and its blue print 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 and blue print produced by the NTA, it appears that it is 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
in awarding 100 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. 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