Madras High Court Terminates Admission Of 3rd Year MBBS Student After Finding He Had Made Baseless Allegations Of Change In NEET OMR Answer Sheet

After extensive investigation into the matter, Justice CV Karthikeyan was satisfied that the original OMR Sheet as produced by the respondent agencies was the only one in existence in which the candidate had scored 248 marks out of 720.

Thus, the court found that the writ did not stand and the interim permission that was granted by the single judge, allowing the candidate to participate in the admission process would have to be interfered with.

In view of this decision taken, I am afraid that the permission granted by the leaned Single Judge to permit the petitioner to attend the counselling and consequent to which the petitioner had been allotted a medical seat in Thoothukudi Government Medical College, will have to be interfered with and necessary orders will have to be passed terminating the continuance of study by the petitioner in the Thoothukudi Government Medical College.

In the present case, the candidate claimed that the OMR answer sheet which he had initially downloaded showed a score of 594 out of 720. However, when the results were declared, his marks were declared as 248. The candidate questioned the originality of this OMR sheet as he stated that it was not the one filled by him. Though he sent email correspondence to the National Testing Agency, they denied any such allegation.

During the pendency of the proceedings, a single judge directed the original OMR sheet to be produced before the court and allowed the candidate to participate in the admission process subject to the final orders. The single judge had also ordered for a CB-CID inquiry into the matter which was later stayed by a division bench. The Supreme court confirmed the stay and directed the single judge to dispose of the petition.

After the matter was remanded back, the court summoned the candidate to verify his signatures in the OMR answer sheet and in the attendance sheet. The candidate confirmed that the signature in the answer sheet was his but said that the OMR sheet was not his.

The court then directed the National Testing Agency to forward the original attendance sheet and the OMR answer sheet to the Directorate of Forensic Science Services (DFSS). The Central Forensic Science Laboratory confirmed that the signature in both was that of the candidate.

The National Testing Agency also submitted its report confirming that there was only one OMR answer sheet in the NIC server in the name of the candidate. The report also detailed the procedure for safe keeping, scanning and evaluation of the OMR sheets and stated that there was no possibility of two different OMR sheets.

The court perused the original mark sheet and was satisfied that no further examination of any other issue was necessary. Even though it was contended that original OMR sheet could be manipulated, the court felt that these contentions stretch the issues too far.

Thus, relying on the reports from the National Testing agency, the Forensic Laboratory and the principal of the Educational institution where the petitioner was studying at present, the court concluded that there was only one OMR sheet and that the petitioner had scored only 248 marks in NEET 2020.

Case Title: KS Manoj v. Union of India and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 78

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.M.Ravi

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms.Anuradha Central Government Standing Counsel, Mr.G.Rajagopalan Senior Advocate For Ms.Sunitha Kumari, Standing Counsel (National Testing Agency), Ms.Subharanjani Ananth, Standing Counsel (Medical Counselling Committee), Mr. U.M Ravichandran Special Government Pleader