Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Khadija Khanam D/O Shri Parvej Khan vs Union Of India on 7 July, 2025
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2025:RJ-JP:24373]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8095/2025
Roshan Yadav D/o Shri Ramji Lal Yadav, Aged About 22 Years,
R/o- Dhani Ahiro Ki, Hathora, Mandusiya, District- Sikar,
Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Department Of
Higher Education, Ministry Of Education, Government Of
India, New Delhi
2. The Director General, National Testing Agency (Nta), First
Floor, Nsic-Mdbp Building, Okhala Industrial Estate, New
Delhi, Delhi- 110020
3. The Director (Exam), National Testing Agency (Nta), First
Floor, Nsic-Mdbp Building, Okhala Industrial Estate, New
Delhi, Delhi- 110020
4. The District Collector, District- Sikar, Rajasthan
5. The Nodal Officer, Appointed By Nta For Centre No.
3923101, Excellence Girls Senior Secondary School, Near
Nehru Park, Salasar Road, Sikar, Rajasthan
6. The Centre Superintendent, Excellence Girls Senior
Secondary School (Centre No. 3923101) Near Nehru
Park, Salasar Road, Sikar - 332001, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Along with connected matters shown in the appended Schedule-I
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore with
Mr. Navdeep Singh
Mr. Paramanand Paliwal
Mr. Himanshu Jain
Mr. Divyanshu Choudhary
Ms. Apoorva Agarwal
Mr. Pradeep Kalwania
Ms. Sushila Kalwania
Mr. Majhar Hussain
Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma
Mr. Vivek Joshi with
Ms. Preeti Sharma
(Downloaded on 07/07/2025 at 10:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24373] (2 of 14) [CW-8095/2025]
Mr. Om Prakash Sharma
Mr. Arpan Kumar Sharma
Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni
Mr. Tanveer Ahamad with
Mr. Anurag Mathur
Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Saini with
Mr. Virendra Godara
Mr. Anshuman Saxena
Mr. Vishal Gurjar
Mr. Lovesh Mamnani
Mr. Gaurav Meena
Mr. Narsi Prasad Sharma
Mr. Subhash Sharma
Mr. Vikas Jakhar with
Mr. Vishal Roy
Ms. Savita Nathawat
Mr.Rajendra Kumar Pareek
Mr.OP Solanki
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rupesh Kumar with
Mr. M.S. Raghav
Mr. Viswas Saini
Mr. Mananjay Singh Rathore
Ms. Kirti Rathore for NTA
Mr. Rakesh Choudhary, Sr. Adv.
assisted by Siddhant Jain
Mr. Pradhuman Singh Rathore for
NMC
Mr. Pawan Pareek for UOI
Mr. Surya Pratap Rajawat (AGC) &
Mr. Sumit Sharma for
Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG
Mr. Angad Mirdha for NMC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
RESERVED ON :: 02/07/2025
PRONOUNCED ON :: 7/07/2025
REPORTABLE :
1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the scope of the
controversy involved, albeit not limited to but is broadly and
predominantly defined by the challenge raised regarding the
NEET-UG Exam, 2025 conducted on all India basis by the
(Downloaded on 07/07/2025 at 10:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24373] (3 of 14) [CW-8095/2025]
respondent - National Testing Agency (NTA) on 04.05.2025
wherein, due to power failure/outrage, adverse weather conditions
of storm and rain; jumbled and non-sequential question booklet;
irregular/delayed time shown by the wall clock in the examination
rooms and failure to ensure fairness, transparency and equal
opportunity during the said examination. Consequently,
considering the fact that the writ petitions warrant adjudication on
common questions of law and fact; with the consent of learned
counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties, S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 8095/2025 titled as Roshan Yadav vs. Union of
India and Ors, is being taken up as the lead case. It is cautiously
clarified that any discrepancies in the present batch of writ
petitions, pertain purely to the factual narratives contained therein
and not vis-à-vis the questions of law to be determined by this
Court; the instant judgment shall be applicable on all the petitions
connected herein/henceforth on mutatis mutandis basis.
2. The lead petition is filed with the following prayers:
"a. By issuing a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order, or direction, the
Respondents be directed to consider the grievance of
the Petitioner regarding the irregularities faced during
the NEET (UG) examination and take appropriate
remedial action including to conduct re-examination of
NEET-2025 to the extent of Petitioner or grant
bonus/compensatory marks; and/or, thereby if she is
found successful then she may be allowed to
participate in further process of counselling &
admission in appropriate medical courses in any
appropriate medical institution; and/or,
b. Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble
Court considers just, fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in
favour of the Petitioner; and,
(Downloaded on 07/07/2025 at 10:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24373] (4 of 14) [CW-8095/2025]
c. By appropriate writ order or direction, the cost of
litigation may also kingly be given to the petitioner .
d. By an appropriate writ order or direction any other
appropriate relief to which the petitioner is found
entitled to may also kindly be granter in her favour."
FACTUAL BACKDROP :
3. On 04th May, 2025, the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test (Undergraduate) was conducted across 5,468 centres situated
in 552 cities within India as well as in 14 international cities. In
the present batch of writ petitions, the cause of action is stated to
have arisen at Sikar, Rajasthan, wherein 98 centres were
designated as examination venues. A total of 32,208 candidates
were registered at these centres, out of which 31,787 candidates
appeared for the examination. It was averred by the counsel
representing the petitioners that approximately 15 centres were
adversely impacted due to power failure, and other alleged
deficiencies, affecting 5,390 candidates who had appeared therein.
From amongst the candidates at the aforesaid centres, 31
candidates have approached this Court by way of the present
petitions, seeking directions either for conducting a re-
examination or, in the alternative, the grant of
compensatory/bonus marks.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE
PETITIONERS:
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners have
unanimously submitted that, on account of the power failure and
outage occurring for periods ranging between 5 minutes and 28
minutes approximately at various examination centres, the
(Downloaded on 07/07/2025 at 10:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24373] (5 of 14) [CW-8095/2025]
performance of the petitioners stood materially prejudiced. It was
urged that, in the context of a highly competitive examination,
such disruption has inevitably impinged upon the petitioners' merit
ranking, thereby causing irreparable detriment to their prospects.
5. It was further contended that there exists a rational and
reasonable classification between two distinct classes of
candidates, namely, those who appeared at the affected centres
and those who appeared at the unaffected centres. It was
submitted that such distinction warrants differential treatment in
the matter of redressal so as to ensure fairness and parity. It was
also submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the present
case, the occurrence of power failure and outage, as also
distortion in the serial numbering of the question papers provided
to certain candidates, is in dispute.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that it is
axiomatic, as per the instructions governing the conduct of the
examination, that it was the responsibility of the respondents,
including the Collector concerned, to ensure uninterrupted
electricity supply so as to facilitate the candidates in writing the
examination in a conducive environment and to enable them to
put forth their best performance without unwarranted hindrance.
It was further contended that the power failure and outage not
only adversely impacted the performance of the candidates at the
affected centres but also subjected them to undue stress and
anxiety, thereby placing them at a manifest disadvantage vis-à-vis
candidates at the unaffected centres.
(Downloaded on 07/07/2025 at 10:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24373] (6 of 14) [CW-8095/2025]
7. It was specifically pointed out that, as per the results derived
from the Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) Sheets and the final
answer keys approved by the respondents, the marks obtained by
the petitioners ranged in-between 400 and 600, with a significant
number of petitioners standing proximate to the qualifying cut-off
marks. Therefore, had the disruption not occurred, the petitioners-
candidates could have secured higher marks, thereby enhancing
their merit position.
8. In this background, it was submitted that, in the interest of
justice and to safeguard the principles of fairness and equality,
either a re-examination be directed in respect of the affected
candidates or, in the alternative, compensatory/bonus marks be
awarded to the petitioners, in accordance with their respective
claims and as per their option. In support of their submissions,
learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance upon a
number of judicial pronouncements Disha Panchal Vs. Union of
India: 2018(17) SCC 278; Alakh Pandey Vs. National
Testing Agency & Ors.: Writ Petition No.368/2024, decided
on 13th June, 2024; and Vanshika Yadav Vs.Union of India &
ors.: 2024(9) SCC 743;
9. In addition, reliance was also placed upon the Frequently
Asked Questions (FAQs) pertaining to NEET UG-2024 as well as
the Public Notice dated 13th June, 2024 issued by the respondents.
Drawing strength from the said documents, it was contended that,
in analogous circumstances involving time-loss, the Grievance
Redressal Committee, upon due evaluation, had granted
compensatory time and awarded proportionate bonus marks. It
(Downloaded on 07/07/2025 at 10:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24373] (7 of 14) [CW-8095/2025]
was urged that, on the basis of such precedents, the present writ
petitions deserve to be allowed in like manner.
SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE
RESPONDENTS:
10. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Rupesh Sharma,
assisted by learned counsel, Mr. M.S. Raghav, appearing on behalf
of the respondents, at the outset have submitted and admitted
that incidents of power failure and outage, as well as jumbling of
the question series, did occur for periods ranging between 5 and
28 minutes at the respective centres, depending on the location.
However, based on the statistical data referred to hereinabove,
only approximately 0.575% of the candidates appearing from the
Examination Centre at Sikar raised any grievance in this regard.
11. It was contended that merely handful of candidates from the
Sikar Centre approached this Court and that approximately 99.5%
of the candidates appeared to be satisfied with the conduct of the
examination. On this basis, it was submitted that the objections
and grievances raised by the petitioners were neither tenable nor
maintainable, particularly when the power failure had occurred on
account of heavy storm and inclement weather conditions, which
were beyond the control of any person or authority.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that
an Expert Committee/Grievance Cell, comprising two to three
members, was duly constituted, and that the said Committee,
upon a detailed analysis of the available data and statistics,
concluded that the duration allotted for answering the questions at
(Downloaded on 07/07/2025 at 10:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24373] (8 of 14) [CW-8095/2025]
the affected centres and the unaffected centres remained the
same in effect. Subsequently, it was averred that no prejudice was
caused to the petitioners and that the plea of adverse impact on
performance was merely a lame excuse without any factual
foundation.
13. Further, it was submitted that the marks secured by the
petitioners, as well as by other candidates who appeared at the
affected centres, were as high as 600 out of 720 marks, which
reflected a very good performance overall. Accordingly, it was
contended that no substantial prejudice or disadvantage could be
said to be caused to the petitioner-candidates. It was further
submitted that, having regard to the extensive scale of the
examination, it might be possible that in certain copies and series,
minuscule discrepancies in the sequencing or chronology of
questions arose; however, the pattern of the examination and the
instructions issued in this regard indicated that no material
prejudice resulted, as the question paper was structured in a
manner that each question pertaining to the respective science
subject was printed distinctly, and each new page of the question
booklet commenced with the subsequent question; there was no
breakage in any question or the multiple choice options.
14. It was contended that no specific instructions were provided
mandating any uniform chronology of questions within the
question paper booklet. Learned counsel for the respondents
placed reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in Vanshika Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (Civil) No.335/2024], decided on 02nd August, 2024, wherein relief was (Downloaded on 07/07/2025 at 10:21:59 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:24373] (9 of 14) [CW-8095/2025] declined and the prayer stood rejected in favour of the respondent National Testing Agency in a similar factual context. Therefore, maintaining judicial parity the present batch of petitions ought to be dismissed.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS :
15. Having heard the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsel for all the parties, upon a meticulous scanning of the material available record, have given anxious consideration to the judgments and authorities cited at the Bar and juxtaposing the contentions noted herein above, this Court at the outset is of the following view:
15.1 It stands established on the record that the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (Undergraduate)-2025 was conducted across 5,468 centres within the territory of India on 04th May, 2025.
15.2 The examination was scheduled and conducted during the time-slot from 2:00 PM to 5:00 PM.
15.3 The question paper was disseminated in multiple series, each comprising questions covering the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and other allied disciplines. Moreover, it is an admitted position that each page of the question paper booklet contained a distinct question, and every successive page commenced with the next question in sequence, it is admitted that zilch of the questions had fragmented segment, for instance, the body of question on one page and the multiple choice questions on the other.
(Downloaded on 07/07/2025 at 10:21:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24373] (10 of 14) [CW-8095/2025] 15.4 It is further noted from the records that no instructions, notifications, or guidelines were issued by the respondent-NTA instructing that the questions were to be arranged in any chronological, ascending, or descending order. Therefore, in the absence of any prescription of sequence, no inference can be drawn that a particular order was mandated.
16. From the averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioners it is noted that in the present batch of writ petitions, the cause of action is confined to the examination centre located at Sikar, Rajasthan. It was contended that on account of power failure and outage, prejudice was occasioned in respect of 15 centres, wherein 5,390 candidates appeared. However, it is significant that, out of 31,787 candidates who appeared in the Sikar district and approximately 22 lakh candidates across the country, only 31 candidates have approached this Court by way of the instant writ petitions. In view of such proportion, the principle de minimis non curat lex--the law does not concern itself with trifles--would squarely apply. As isolated grievances raised by a statistically negligible number of candidates cannot, by themselves, vitiate a large-scale examination conducted at a PAN- India level.
17. This Court also notes that the power failure admittedly occurred due to storm and rains, which are vis major events--acts of God and is beyond the control of any party. Accordingly, the contention of the petitioners that the respondents ought to have (Downloaded on 07/07/2025 at 10:22:00 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:24373] (11 of 14) [CW-8095/2025] ensured uninterrupted power supply, despite such unforeseen circumstances, is untenable.
18. It further stands established that the examination was held in the summer season on 04 th May, 2025, and it is unambiguous that during that time, sufficient natural daylight prevailed until the conclusion of the examination. It is not disputed that the examination centres were adequately ventilated and equipped with windows, ensuring ambient light and proper conditions for examination. It is also demonstrated through data and statistical analysis that a substantial number of candidates from the "affected" centres secured high marks, ranging between 550 and 600 out of 720, thereby clearly negating the allegation of systemic prejudice.
19. The Expert Committee constituted by the respondent authorities duly examined the representations and grievances. It submitted a comprehensive report, wherein a comparative analysis was conducted between the performance of candidates from the affected and unaffected centres. It was found that the average number of questions attempted at both categories of centres was approximately 144, and no material deviation or differential impact was discernible. This Court is, therefore, is persuaded to accept the contention of the respondents that no tangible prejudice was caused.
20. The learned counsel for the petitioners further raised an objection concerning the alleged jumbling and non-chronology of the question series. However, upon perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is satisfied that the claim is meritless. The (Downloaded on 07/07/2025 at 10:22:00 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:24373] (12 of 14) [CW-8095/2025] integrated question series was designed to contain questions in varied sequences, and each page concluded and commenced with a distinct question. Moreover, no instruction was ever issued indicating that the questions would follow any specific numerical order.
21. One of the petitioners also urged that stoppage of the wall clock inside the examination hall adversely impacted her performance. However, the attendance sheet produced during the proceedings bears the signature of the petitioner-Ms. Palak Middha, confirming the release of the question paper at 1:53 PM and the conclusion of the examination at 5:02 PM. The recording of such precise times with invigilator authentication conclusively negates any allegation of prejudice. Moreover, it is no where categorically alleged that the examination halls were having only one clock for the candidates, or that the invigilators have conceded the exact time from the candidates. Thence, it is opined that once this foundational plea stands discredited by documentary evidence, the credibility of the entire grievance diminishes.
22. The reliance placed by the petitioners upon certain Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) and instances of compensatory measures granted in NEET UG-2024 is clearly distinguishable on facts. In those cases, compensatory marks were awarded due to distribution of an incorrect question series, not on account of power outage or force majeure circumstances.
23. It is further noted that in similar factual situations, the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 18359/2025 titled as S. (Downloaded on 07/07/2025 at 10:22:00 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:24373] (13 of 14) [CW-8095/2025] Sai Priya Vs. the Union of India and Ors. as well as the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court have taken a prima facie view that no material prejudice was occasioned merely due to temporary power interruptions.
24. In the conspectus of the facts, evidence, and legal submissions made by respective counsel for the parties this Court is of a view that the plea made for conducting re-examination as the examination in question i.e. NEET-UG was scheduled and carried out on pan-India basis; nevertheless the grant of bonus marks at the fag end cannot be entertained, since the interest of approximately 22 lakh candidates cannot be sacrificed to provide a remedy to grievances made by handful of candidates, moreover, unsupported by cogent and substantial evidence of prejudice.
25. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present batch of writ petitions are found to be bereft of any merits and are hereby dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Preeti Asopa
(Downloaded on 07/07/2025 at 10:22:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24373] (14 of 14) [CW-8095/2025]
SCHEDULE - I
Sr. No. SBCWP No. Reserved on
1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7602/2025 02.07.2025
2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8081/2025
3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8101/2025
4. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8219/2025
5. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8294/2025
6 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8412/2025
7. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8415/2025
8. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8435/2025
9. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8443/2025
10. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8454/2025
11. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8584/2025
12. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8602/2025
13. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8603/2025
14. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8607/2025
15. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8646/2025
16. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8658/2025
17. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8664/2025
18. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8665/2025
19. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8667/2025
20. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8668/2025
21. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8669/2025
22. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8763/2025
23. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8837/2025
24. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8844/2025
25. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9167/2025
26. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9358/2025
27. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9359/2025
28. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9360/2025
29. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9361/2025
30. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9365/2025
31. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9030/2025
32. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10086/2025 04.07.2025
(Downloaded on 07/07/2025 at 10:22:00 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)