Meghalaya HC Rejects NEET-UG 2024 Candidates' Plea Seeking Re-Test For Delay In Distributing Question Papers, Says Extra Time Was Provided

The Meghalaya High Court on Wednesday (August 14) dismissed the writ petition filed by the NEET-UG, 2024 candidates seeking a re-test as a compensatory measure against the loss of time at the exam centre on the part of the National Testing Agency (NTA).

The petitioners had appeared in the National Eligibility-cum Entrance Test (UG) 2024 on 05.05.2024 at Jowai and Nongpoh exam centres, approached the Court with the complaint that they were denied the allocated time of 3 hours and 20 minutes to complete the paper, since, a lot of time had been wasted due to supply of wrong question papers and contradictory instructions given to the students by the examiners.

The contention of the petitioners is that due to the lack of clarity, as to which paper was to be answered, and due to the confusion, the petitioners were denied almost 40-45 minutes on an average of the allocated time period, for attempting the question paper.

The petitioners contended that they shall be given the benefit of re-test as was allowed to 1563 students. It may be recalled that 1563 students were granted an option of re-test after grace marks were granted to them by NTA and were interfered with by the Supreme Court.

However, the Court differentiated the case of 1563 students who were allowed the option of re-test by the Supreme Court to the present case.

In the present case, they recognized the fact that the lapse was detected by the estimate of the Invigilators, and as per the NTA guidelines, an additional time of 15 minutes had been allowed, and therefore, the exam instead of concluding at 5:20 PM, was allowed to continue till 5:35 PM.

“From the sequence of events therefore, notwithstanding the lapse, in the distribution of the question papers, extra time having been allowed in both the centres and though the same alleged to be insufficient, in the considered view of this Court, though there may be a marginal difference, between the time lost and compensated, in the absence of any other materials to show that the time lost was more significant, no case has been made out for any interference by this Court.”, the bench comprising Justice H. S. Thangkhiew said.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Ms. Y. Pallavi, Adv. with Mr. E.R. Chyne, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. T. Mehta, SGI with Mr. R. Kumar, Sr. Adv. Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI Ms. P. Shrivastava, Adv. Ms. A. Pradhan, Adv.(For R 1-3) Mr. N.D. Chullai, AAG with Ms. R. Colney, GA(For R 4)

Case Details: Eleazer Vincent Lyngdoh & Ors. Versus National Testing Agency & Ors., WP(C) No. 270 of 2024

Click here to read/download the order