NEET-UG: Delhi High Court Imposes Rs 20K Cost After Candidate Produces Fabricated OMR Sheet

The Delhi High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000 against a NEET aspirant who claimed to have scored higher marks than what was reflecting on the record by producing a fabricated OMR Sheet.

Expressing shock over the stand of the aspirant, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said,

“it is stated by counsel for the petitioner that earlier the name of the petitioner was appearing, however, on modification of the answer sheet, the same stands deleted. Such a stand is again unacceptable and shocking to the conscience of the court.”

If the name of the petitioner had ever appeared in the merit list, the same can only be deleted by passing appropriate order or modification. However, at this stage, all those aspects may not have much relevance, said the bench.

On comparing the original OMR sheet with the OMR sheet relied upon on behalf of the petitioner, the Court opined that, “It is discernable from the comparison of both OMR sheets that question no.4 is answered by the petitioner in original answer sheet with option no.3. Option no.3 is the incorrect answer.” Similarly it found that several responses to the questions were tampered.

The Court was hearing the writ petition filed by a NEET (UG)- 2023 aspirant conducted by National Testing Agency (NTA). According to her, she secured 351 (All India Rank for Counselling) and total marks obtained were 697 out of 720. She alleged that the marks were replaced on the website and instead of actual marks i.e. 697 out of 720, she was shown to have obtained 103 marks and, her All India Rank for Counselling was replaced to 1253032 with a percentile of 38.4043724.

The counsel representing the NTA, submitted that the scorecard on which the petitioner relied upon is forged and if the score card relied upon on behalf of the petitioner is correct; the same must be available on the official website of NTA.

Considering the submissions, the Court said that the sequence of facts and the material available on record creates genuine doubt against the bonafides of the petitioner.

The bench noted that petitioner is stated to have been allotted a rank by two States. The aforesaid position is also disputed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of NTA who states that under both merit list even the name of the petitioner does not appeal.

Noting the response of the aspirant that her name was earlier appearing, however, on modification of the answer sheet, the same stands deleted, the Court said, “Such a stand is again unacceptable and shocking to the conscience of the court.”

Consequently the Court observed that it intended to impose costs of Rs.2,00,000/- against the petitioner and also to send the matter for investigation to the police, however, keeping in mind the tender age of the petitioner and various circumstances such as the pressure of the parents and peers, the court refrained from taking such a view and instead imposes costs of Rs.20,000/- against the petitioner.

Case Title: Selishia Mohandas v. UOI & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 754

Click Here to Read/ Download the Order