'To Err Is Human': Allahabad HC Directs Re-Checking Of NEET Aspirant's OMR Who Accidentally Mentioned Wrong Booklet Code

Recently, the Allahabad High Court directed re-checking of a National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test [NEET (UG)]-2025 aspirant's Optical Marks Recognition (OMR) sheet who had 'wrongly' mentioned the question booklet number and had secured 41 marks instead of 589 marks. While not giving any interim relief to the petitioner regarding her selection status, the bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava observed thus: “Petitioner has not alleged that she made mistake in answering any or several questions. Her contention is mistaken mention of the booklet code series. Her mistake has caused omission to evaluate her merit. We see the mistake in that context. Furthermore, the candidate is all of 20 years old and had prepared herself, as other candidates did, to take the examination. To err is human and it happens, in spite of there being notices against commission of errors. The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 does provide for correction of, inter alia, clerical errors made by the Court.” Petitioner approached the Court alleging that instead of writing 47, she had written 46 as her question booklet number on the OMR sheet, because of which her OMR was evaluated against a different series of questions. It was pleaded that but for this mistake, the petitioner would have secured 589 marks out of 720 marks and made the cut-off for selection. Petitioner approached the Court with a prayer to direct the concerned authorities to re-evaluate her OMR sheet. Counsel for the National Testing Agency (NTA) argued that the entire process of evaluation had been completed and that there was no scope of interference now. It was argued that the time to raise objections was between 3rd and 5th June, on which dates the petitioner knew about the answer booklets and OMR sheets; however, she raised objections on 14th June, when the result was declared. It was argued that the Supreme Court has disapproved of Courts interfering in such cases. Counsel for NTA referred to Ran Vijay Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh where the Supreme Court had observed that “It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty.” Justice Sinha observed that though the intention behind shuffling the question numbers in different answer booklets is to prevent unfair means, the difference between 41 and 589 is vast. Observing that the petitioner is 20 years old and correction for clerical errors is provided in CPC, the Court observed “We appreciate that object of the examination is to select the most meritorious. In this case, there has not been assessment of petitioner's merit because of this error she committed. Hence, in event there is assessment of her merit and thereby she displaces somebody, who has less merit, that will require consideration.” The Court observed that it was not pleaded that the petitioner had deliberately mentioned the wrong booklet number, and the same could not be said to be deliberate at this stage. The Court directed NTA to reevaluate the petitioner's OMR against the answer booklet 47 and apprise the Court of the result for the writ petition to move forward.Case title - Akshita Singh vs. Union Of India And 3 OthersClick here To Read/download Order

'To Err Is Human': Allahabad HC Directs Re-Checking Of NEET Aspirant's OMR Who Accidentally Mentioned Wrong Booklet Code

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags