NEET-UG : HC Order For Retest To 2 Students Delaying Entire Results, NTA Tells Supreme Court; Seeks Early Hearing

The National Testing Agency on Monday urged the Supreme Court to allow urgent hearing of its special leave petition challenging the recent Bombay High Court order directing the National Testing Agency to hold fresh exam for two NEET UG aspirants.

A request for urgent hearing of the case was made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta during mentioning before a Bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli.

SG Mehta urged the Bench to hear the special leave petition on Tuesday on ground that the declaration of NEET results is getting delayed due to the HC order.

While initially the Bench suggested SG Mehta to mention the case before the Bench hearing NEET matters, after being informed that it is a fresh SLP, it agreed to consider if listing needs to be allowed.

" Let us see" CJI said.

The Bombay High Court through its impugned order directed the NTA to hold a fresh examination of the two petitioners for the Academic Year 2021-2022 and declare the result within a period of two weeks.

A 48 hrs. clear notice was directed to be given to the Petitioners about the date of examination and the center allotted to them.

The High Court also advised the NTA to frame appropriate Rules / guidelines for providing remedial measures in case of such difficulties that may arise in similar situations, in future, keeping in mind the interest and future of such students.

The two Petitioners before the Bombay High Court sought an order and direction against National Testing Agency to re-examine them by conducting a separate NEET UG examination before declaration of result on grounds of a mix up / mismatch with respect to the Test Booklet and the OMR Sheets during their exams

The petitioners further sought direction to declare the result of their re-examination of along with the result of NEET examination held on 12th September 2021.

According to the Petitioners the Examiner started distributing the question paper and answer booklet only at 2.05 pm. i.e. 5 minutes later than the timing of the examination and opened all the sealed covers at the

The petitioners argued that during the exam, One examiner started distributing question paper booklets separately to all the students and other examiner started distributing answer sheet booklets. As a result, for six candidates in one row got the question paper booklet and the answer sheet booklet with the same CODE and specific 7 digit serial number. However, for the 6 students in the other row due to the error committed by the Invigilator, both Petitioners got incorrect question paper booklet and answer paper booklets.

According to the petitioners, when they realized this mistake on the part of the Invigilator, they pointed out this mistake to the Invigilator who threatened them with dire consequences of reporting them for causing nuisance and disturbance in the examination hall and thereby committing unfair practice if they further protested.

According to the petitioners, they started answering the questions at 4.15 – 4.30 pm. when time to complete the paper was expiring at 5.00 pm, and being in confusion and anxiety caused due to the blunder caused by the Invigilator, they could not complete the paper.