The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO.21094 OF 2025 An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India Priyanshi Priyadarshini Dash …. Petitioner -Versus- Union of India and others …. Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in this case: For Petitioner : Mr. Prabhu Prasanna Behera, Advocate For Opp. Parties: Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. J. Panda, CGC (for O.P. Nos.1 to 3) Mr. Debasish Hazra, Advocate (for O.P. No.4) CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO J U D G M E N T DECIDED ON 19.08.2025 PER MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J. The Petitioner-student is grieving before this Court regarding her result in the National Eligibility-Cum- Page 1 of 8 Entrance Test [NEET (UG)], for admission to Undergraduate Medical Courses pursuant to the notice dated 07.02.2025. 2. It is submitted that there is some discrepancy in the result published by the NEET. It is alleged that ‘two results’ have been published, one on the date of publication i.e. 14.06.2025 and there has been a subsequent notification where the rank of the Petitioner has been changed to her detriment.
Decision
3. We directed by our order dated 30.07.2025 the learned DSGI “to obtain instruction and produce records as would be necessary for effective adjudication of the matter. The record shall be kept ready in a sealed cover”. On 14.08.2025 the learned DSGI along with the learned Senior Panel Counsel and learned Central Government Counsel ensured presence of Shri Binod Kumar Sahu, Director, Legal, National Testing Agency, Ministry of Education, Government of India, New Delhi. On the said date considering intricate and high-end technicalities involved in the matter, we heard the Director in detail regarding the method of conducting the examination by the NTA, the safety measures, security measures, transparency and the best practices followed for evaluation and ensuring integrity of the examination. 4. At paragraph-5 of the writ petition the following has been stated by the petitioner: - W.P.(C) No.21094 of 2025 Page 2 of 8 “5. That further as per the notification, the exam was held on 04.05.2025. Further the petitioner humbly submits that, after appearing in the examination on dated 04.05.2025 her hopes were high as she did very well in the examination and was expecting good qualifying marks basing on her performance in the aforesaid NEET (UG) Examination 2025 she would get herself admitted in the top medical colleges of India. True to her hopes when the answer key was declared on the official website of NTA i.e. 0pp. Party No. 2 and the petitioner on matching the answer key vis-a-vis the Question Paper provided by 0pp. party No.2 on the date of the examination, the petitioner was assured that, she will not be securing less that 550 marks in the said examination. The Copy of the question paper is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE- 3.” 5. The learned DSGI and Mr. Panda, learned CGC produced the print out of the e-mail copy sent by the ‘neet.nta.nic.in’ in the e-mail ID of the petitioner ‘[email protected]’; also produced is the answer sheet of the petitioner-Priyanshi Priyadarshini Dash indicating answer sheet i.e. OMR sheet which is a coloured photocopy of the original copy, that contains the details like Test Booklet number, time of examination, father’s name, mother’s name, signature of the invigilators (name) and candidate’s signature and thumb impression. 6. Since several litigations are pending before this Court with the kind of allegation: that initially, the “mark published/send by e-mail is very high”, but the “subsequent” mark is very less, we decided to interact at some length with the Officer present in Court on behalf of the NTA, more for the reason; to be assured as a Constitutional Court that the examination system is honest, W.P.(C) No.21094 of 2025 Page 3 of 8 transparent, maintains its integrity and not vulnerable to interference/tampering by unscrupulous elements adopting unethical means with ulterior motives. The Officer present has explained in detail various standard operating procedures adopted by the NTA. Mr. Parhi, learned DSGI has earlier stated and reiterates that at least on two earlier occasions detail investigations regarding irregularities by the Investigating Agency (like CBI) has pointed finger to the candidate concerned or his/ her family members and associates. 7. Mr. Behera, learned counsel for petitioner refers to the additional affidavit dated 5th of August, 2025 sworn to by the petitioner enclosing the Test Booklet No.46 that contains, Name of the Candidate, Invigilator’s Signature; but Roll Number, Centre of Examination, candidate’s signature is not reflected/absent. 8. We have noticed and observe that apparently, in the writ petition petitioner has not disclosed the website from which she has sourced the annexures along with full web address such as Uniform Resource Locator (URL). For example, if one looks for National Testing Agency it shows https://www.nta.ac.in as would be available in the digital format. The alleged downloaded copies of documents also do not show any such name. W.P.(C) No.21094 of 2025 Page 4 of 8 It is a matter of grave concern that incorrect facts have been stated in the writ petition at paragraph-5, fabricated/ manufactured documents have been annexed to the writ petition in support of the contention. Considering the petitioner is a young adult at a nascent stage, is impressionable, and as a student is facing difficult competitive examination, we do not wish to observe any further. 9. Counter has been filed on behalf of opposite party nos.2 and 3. In the counter factual averments have been made denying the allegations of petitioner. The relevant paragraphs of the counter affidavit are reproduced: 8. That the petitioner appeared as a Candidate (with Application Number:250411268696, Roll No.3608102126 and Test Booklet Code-46) in the NEET (UG)-2025 exam conducted on 04.05.2025 from 2:00 PM at 5:00 PM at Kendriya Vidyalaya No.2, Opp. New Palace (Centre Code:3608102), Balangir, Odisha. 9. That the copy of the questions paper/test booklet, which has been filed by the Petitioner as Annexure-3 was not administered to the Petitioner for NEET (UG)-2005 Exam, as admitted by her in her additional affidavit. Instead, the Test Booklet in the series of “46”, was administered to her for her NEET (UG) 2025 exam on 04.05.2025, a true copy of the cover page of which is filed herewith as ANNEXURE-A/2. 10. That the claim of the Petitioner that she has not received her OMR Answer Sheet from NTA, is false and hence denied. That copy of the aforesaid OMR Answer Sheet was displayed to her during the official challenged period i.e. 3 to 5 June 2025 along with her answers/responses obtained therefrom (as was the case for all other candidates), for inviting any challenge/objection to her response/provisional answer key, (under intimation through Public Notice dated 03.06.2025). Further the aforesaid OMR Answer Sheet (bearing Answer Sheet No.115744870) was sent to her in her W.P.(C) No.21094 of 2025 Page 5 of 8 registered email id-([email protected]), with CC to her alternate registered email id- [email protected]. A true copy of the said email as well as the scanned copy of her OMR Answer Sheet which was sent through this email, are filed herewith as ANNEXURE-B/2 SERIES.” 11. Hence, the claim of the petitioner that the OMR Answer Sheet was not made available, is factually incorrect and misleading. is baseless 12. That the claim of the Petitioner that she has correctly answered 137 questions out of 180 questions and 540 marks out of 720 marks, in view of her actual performance/answers in her OMR Answer Sheet bearing Answer Sheet No. 115744870 and the Calculation Sheet of her marks evaluated/derived therefrom. In fact, as per the record of NTA, the petitioner has attempted/answered 75 questions out of which she has answered 33 questions correctly and 42 questions incorrectly. As per the marking scheme of the NEET (UG) 2025 Examination, 04 marks has been awarded to the petitioner for every correct answer and 01 mark has been deducted for every incorrect answer. Accordingly, she has been awarded 90 marks [(33x4) - (01x42)] out of 720, and not 540 as claimed by her in her Writ Petition. Further, her result was also supplied to her on 15.06.2025 through her registered email Ids. A true copy of the Final Answer Keys, Calculation Sheet of her marks, the Score Card dated, 14.06.2025 and email dated 15.06.2025 through which her result was sent in her aforesaid registered email Ids, are filed herewith as ANNEXURE- C/2 SERIES. 13. That the NIC, vide its Letter No. NIC/PEP/NEET/2025/11 dated 13.08.2025 has confirmed the following: "a) The scanned copy of OMR and candidate responses as obtained from NTA was displayed on portal on 3- June-25, 12.15 PM. The OMR and responses of the aforesaid candidate was uploaded on NIC server only once. There is no change in any of these since uploading. b) As per record available in database server, the scanned copy of the OMR is enclosed (OMR 250411268696.jpg). The scanned copy of OMR as an attachment in jpg format was shared ([email protected]) and parent's/guardian's ([email protected]) email on 2025-06-05 13:16 with a copy to NTA in BCC at OMRI- [email protected] candidate's on W.P.(C) No.21094 of 2025 Page 6 of 8 c) The OMR sent on the candidate email and the one displayed to the candidate on the examination portal is the same as provided by NTA. a to copy d) The score card email was sent the candidate ([email protected]) and parent's/guardian's email ([email protected]) email id on 2025-06- 15 17:42 with SCORECARD1- [email protected] e) The score card of the aforesaid candidate was uploaded on NIC server only once. There is no change in the document since uploading. As per record available in database server, the score card of the candidate is enclosed (Score Card- 250411268696.pdf). in BCC to NTA A copy of the said Letter Dated 13.08.2025 of NIC along-with the Annexures, are filed herewith as Annexure - D/2 SERIES.” 10. After the matter is substantially heard, at a later stage the learned counsel for the petitioner submits on instruction that the petitioner-student after receiving the OMR-sheet annexed to the counter filed by opposite party- NTA would not further press the writ petition. 11. Regarding the letter from NIC, the agency handling e- mail, web portal website etcs, we have to and do observe that NIC is an independent public sector undertaking which has no connection with the agency NTA i.e. another Government Agency entrusted to conduct examination like NEET. 12. Having gone through the affidavit filed by the opposite party nos.2 and 3, we are satisfied that the allegations made by petitioner are unfounded and imaginary to say the least. The inputs of NIC as quoted above are very crucial in this regard. The opposite party nos.2 and 3 have been able to W.P.(C) No.21094 of 2025 Page 7 of 8 demonstrate that very high standards are being maintained by the National Testing Agency in conducting the NEET examination. Purposefully, we are avoiding to discuss any further details of the information received by the Court/disclosed before the Court as submitted by the Director, Legal, NTA, regarding conducting the examination; as we do not want that the disclosed information to be utilized by unscrupulous elements in any manner to the detriment of the examination, the students taking the examination and all other stake holders. 13. As we have already observed, we refrain from passing remarks against the conduct of the petitioner considering her age and the fact that she being a young adult should have the best opportunity for her future education and can always hope to become a better individual and citizen. 14. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Cost in favour of the opposite parties reluctantly made easy. Manash Ranjan Pathak Judge Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 19th August, 2025/jyostna Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOSTNARANI MAJHEE Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-Aug-2025 17:55:52 W.P.(C) No.21094 of 2025 Page 8 of 8