Allahabad High Court
Aditya Kumar Yadav vs Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry ... on 25 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation:2025:AHC-LKO:49601
Reserved: 21.08.2025
Pronounced: 25.08.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
(LUCKNOW)
Court No.- 6
WRIT C No. 5298 of 2025
Aditya Kumar Yadav
. Petitioners
Versus
Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Health Family Welfare Deptt. Head Quarter New Delhi and 4 Others
.Respondents
Counsel for Petitioner(s):
Dinesh Kumar Tripathi, Krishna Kant Tiwari, Prashant Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s):
A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Shashank Bhasin
CORAM: HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.
J U D G M E N T
1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner who had appeared in the NEET Examination, 2025. Grievance of the petitioner is that when the OMR Sheet was given, ink was spilled on the OMR Sheet and the petitioner made a request for grant of fresh OMR Sheet which was not granted and thus, a span of thirty minutes was wasted which resulted in adverse marks to the petitioner.
2. It is stated that the petitioner had registered grievance on 08.05.2025 and thereafter on 17.05.2025 with regard to the said irregularity. The examination was held on 04.05.2025. It is stated that no steps were taken in respect to the grievances raised. It is also stated that in the last NEET UG Examination, 2024, the petitioner had secured 645 marks out of 720 marks, however, on account of this irregularity, marks have gone down to 525 marks this year.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, stated that the petitioner got 525 marks out of 720 marks. It is further stated that on perusal of the OMR Sheet, nothing wrong was found and the answer sheets could be seen even after the alleged spillage of ink and a reply to that effect had already been given to the petitioner. It is stated that the spillage of the ink has not affected the evaluation of the OMR Sheet.
4. It is further brought on record that all the students were eligible to apply for re-evaluation based upon the answer sheets and the key answers as uploaded and in fact, the petitioner also applied in pursuance thereto and in respect of four questions which, according to the petitioner could not be evaluated on account of spillage of ink, were re-evaluated being Question Nos.136, 137, 138 & 139 and the marks were awarded as is evident from Annexure CA 6. He, thus, argues that the petitioner having not fared well has approached this Court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi Dated 28.07.2025 passed in Satya Nishth v. National Testing Agency (NTA) & Ors. [W.P.(C) 8483/2025] wherein the loss of crucial exam time was considered based upon perusal of the CCTV Reports and the Delhi High Court placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Disha Panchal v. Union of India & Ors., (2018) 17 SCC 278 directed the respondents to grant grace marks by applying the normalization formula as laid down in the case of Disha Panchal (supra).
6. It is important to notice the observations of the Delhi High Court recorded in Paragraphs 64 to 66 in the case of Satya Nishth (supra), which read as under:
64. Accordingly, the respondent/NTA is directed that the present petitioner shall be awarded grace marks by applying the normalisation formula laid down in Disha Panchal (supra) and the updated result/scorecard of the petitioner shall be communicated to him, as well as, uploaded within a period of 05 days. To ensure that the revised rank of the petitioner does not upset the ranks of other candidates, the petitioner shall be assigned supernumerary rank. Illustratively, if the revised rank of the petitioner is falling between the rank 1000 and 1001, he may be assigned rank 1000A.
65. It is made clear that on the basis of revised score and rank, the petitioner shall be eligible to participate in the remaining counselling and it shall not affect the seats already allocated.
66. As a parting note, it may be observed that this Court has come across few individual cases where the candidates suffered loss of exam time for the reason not attributable to them. Constitutional Courts cannot be expected to view CCTV footages, like in the present case, for each such candidate who has been prejudiced on account of loss of exam time for no fault of his. Such cases ought to be examined by a body of experts in a transparent and fair manner which would carry out the exercise undertaken by this Court in the present case. Accordingly, the respondent no.1/NTA is directed to constitute a standing Grievance Redressal Committee for the said purpose, if not already in place, where aggrieved candidates may approach for redressal of their grievances. The Standing Committee shall also be at liberty to devise a formula more suitable/appropriate for the examination in question.
7. This Court had also called for the copy of the answer sheets wherein the spillage of ink was seen partly on Question Nos.136, 137, 138 & 139, however, as the marks have been awarded after scrutiny as is evident from Annexure CA 6, contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that spillage of ink resulted in adverse marks to the petitioner, cannot be considered.
8. In view thereof, although the Court has sympathy with the petitioner, the relief as prayed in the writ petition cannot be granted.
9. Present petition is accordingly dismissed.
10. Answer Sheet kept under sealed cover is returned to the counsel for the respondent.
August 25th, 2025 [Pankaj Bhatia, J.]
Nishant