The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking re-evaluation of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) 2019 over four questions which allegedly had more than one correct answer.
Justice Jayant Nath said the petitioners have prima facie failed to show any glaring mistake which would compel the court to pass interim orders.
As an interim measure, the candidates had urged that the four questions concerned be deleted and the entire exercise of evaluation be carried out, ignoring these questions.
Such a suggestion was opposed by the authorities which said at the present stage, it cannot be done as it would change the entire merit list of the country.
The petitioners claimed in the petition that the question paper consisted of questions having more than one correct answer and the final answer key has one incorrect answer which is contrary to the basic norms of Science, NCERT books and international experts.
They also sought to declare their revised and correct result as per the correct answer marked by them in the OMR sheets.
The court sought response of the Centre, National Testing Agency and Medical Council of India, represented through advocate T Singhdev, on the petition which sought quashing of the results of NEET (UG) 2019, declared on June 5.
It listed the matter for further hearing on July 4.
The National Testing Agency (NTA) was established by the Union Ministry of Human Resource Development as an independent and self-sustained testing organisation to conduct entrance examinations.
While dismissing the interim application, the court said it was clear that NTA has followed an elaborate procedure by taking into account the objections to the answer key uploaded on May 29.
After considering the appropriate objections, changes were made in the answer key which were uploaded on June 5, it noted.
The court said it has not been pleaded that any of the key answers displayed were incorrect and the plea about confusion being caused as alleged prima facie is not convincing.
"At this stage, prima facie, petitioners have failed to show a glaring mistake which would compel this court to pass interim orders as has been sought. Prima facie, the procedure followed by the respondents cannot be termed to be arbitrary or unfair. In my opinion, no interim orders can be passed, at this stage. Present application is accordingly dismissed," it added.