NEET-UG 2021: Kerala High Court Seeks NTA's Response In Plea Seeking Retest Citing Delay By Invigilator

The Kerala High Court on Friday admitted a plea moved by a NEET (UG) candidate seeking a retest of the Entrance examination citing that her OMR answer sheet was likely to be rejected due to the dereliction of the Invigilator assigned to her exam hall.  The Court has sought the response of the National Testing Agency.

Justice P.B Suresh Kumar will hear the matter in the upcoming week. 

The petitioner had approached the Court aggrieved by the alleged arbitrary manner in which the National eligibility Cum Entrance Test (UG) 2021 was conducted at her examination centre, Sree Narayana Public School, Poothotta. 

The setbacks faced by the petitioner allegedly resulted in her and the other candidates in her examination hall losing half an hour of her time to complete the test, the total duration of which is 3 hours. 

Considering the cut-throat competition involved in the  test, it was alleged that the confusion created at the examination centre adversely affected the prospects of the petitioner in getting admitted to the MBBS course. 

Advocate Santhosh Mathew appeared for the petitioner in the matter. 

The Admit Card issued to the candidates required them to present themselves at the examination centre by 11 am for procedural formalities and verification, and to be seated in the examination hall by 12 pm. 

The petitioner had duly followed by the said instructions and was in her allotted room by 12 pm. 

The plea stated that as per the Information Bulletin issued, the candidates were to be issued with the test booklet including the answer sheets at 1:45 pm and the exam was scheduled to commence from 2 p.m.   

This interval of 15 minutes was provided to the candidates for them to carefully fill in their Roll numbers and other details, to blacken the relevant bubbles and to glimpse through the question paper without a rush.

However, the petitioner alleged that the candidates seated in her examination hall were provided with the test booklet only at 2 pm. 

The candidates in the said room were not permitted to fill up their details by the invigilator due to some confusion regarding the booklets provided. 

Ten minutes later, the test booklets were collected back and another set of booklets were distributed to the candidates in the room, including the petitioner.

However, the booklet received by the petitioner carried the details of another candidate, and the relevant bubbles were already shaded.  

Upon informing this to the Invigilator, she was asked to strike off the details of the other candidate and to fill in her details over it. 

The petitioner pointed out that the evaluation of the OMR sheet is done by computer software as specifically informed by the detailed instructions issued to the candidates regarding the procedure to be followed while filling the OMR Answer sheets.

The said instructions also disclosed that the software was very sensitive and that it can only read properly filled black coloured bubbles.

It was further instructed that the Answer sheets should not be tampered with or crossed out in any manner and that any alteration can lead to the rejection of the OMR sheets.

This made her quite anxious since she was very well aware of the sensitive nature of the software that evaluates the answer sheets, and was quite informed that any tampering could lead to rejection.

The plea contended that it took nearly 30 minutes for the candidates in the said hall to commence the actual examination.

Due to the confusion caused, the three hours test had to be completed by the petitioner and other candidates within two and a half hours. 

It was also submitted that other formalities such as the placing the initials of the Invigilators on the answer sheets were also carried out during the said two and a half hours, where it was supposed to be done between 1:45 to 2 pm. This led to the candidates losing out on more time. 

On the aforesaid grounds, the petitioner asserted that grave injustice has been done to students like the petitioner in an entrance examination like NEET (UG) where every mark counts for getting a higher rank.  

Such confusion has adversely affected the possibility to get a good score in the examination, which will, in turn, affect her chances of getting admitted to a good college of her choice for MBBS. 

Apprehending rejection of her answer sheet, the petitioner had approached the respondent as evidenced by an email where she reported the incident and requested a retest. 

The inaction of the respondents has resulted in irreparable examination and hardship to the petitioner. 

"The inaction on the part of the invigilators at the test centre in exercising due caution and care has exposed candidates like the petitioner to a possible threat of rejection of their OMR sheets," the plea read.

She prayed that a detailed enquiry be conducted into her grievance by the respondents. 

Similarly, it was also prayed that the respondents facilitate the conduct of a retest to the petitioner and similarly situated students who lost half an hour to complete the examination. 

The plea has sought interim relief to the effect that the petitioner's OMR answer sheet may be evaluated without rejection pending disposal of the writ petition.

Case Title: Devika R. Mohan v. Union of India & Ors.