[2025:RJ-JP:29845-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 881/2025 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8454/2025 Priya Nagar D/o Durga Dutt Nagar, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Khatiko Ka Mohalla, Viratnagar, Antela, Po Antela, District Jaipur, Rajasthan-303119 ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Medical Education, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Chairman, Neet Ug Counseling Board-2025, Sms Medical College, Jaipur. 3. National Medical Commission, Through Its Secretary, Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka, Phase-I, New Delhi. 4. National Testing Agency, Through Its Director General First Floor, Nsic-Mdbp Building, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi, Delhi 110020. 5. Medical Counseling Committee (Mcc), Directorate General Of Health Services, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Government Of India, Neet Ug Medical Counseling-2025, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. 6. Centre Superintendent (3923121), Smsb Government Senior Secondary School Kudan Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni Mr. Prakhar Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Raghav with Mr. Vishwas Saini HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 04/08/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:29845-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-881/2025] 1. The special appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition preferred by the present appellant, was dismissed. 2. The appellant had preferred the writ petition stating therein that she had participated for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET UG Examination-2025) conducted by the National Testing Agency. A defective test booklet bearing Code No.47 was handed over to the appellant. The booklet contained binding and sequencing errors and after page No.8, page No.17 was reflected and after Question No.23, Question No.53 was reflected. Similarly, after page No.24, page No.9 was reflected while Question Nos.25 to 28 coming after Question No.80. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant though filled up the OMR sheet but the defective sequence resulted in the appellant’s taking more time in attempting the paper and if the paper would structured & attempted in a timely manner, she would have scored much more marks. Learned counsel further submits that learned Single Judge while considering the arguments advanced before him, has rejected it stating that the prayer is merit-less. Learned counsel submits that learned Single Judge has erred in holding that there was no indication that all the questions were following numerical order. In normal course, in all the examinations, numerical order is followed more when an OMR sheet is provided to the candidates. Learned counsel also submits that the grave error has occurred only at a particular examination center and the appellant had pointed it out to the Invigilator and the Invigilator had assured for providing correct question paper book, but the same was not provided to the appellant. The appellant lost her chance [2025:RJ-JP:29845-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-881/2025] on account of such defective numerical disorder in the question paper. 3. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties. While we notice on perusal of the copy of the Question paper, provided to the appellant that in fact the questions were being asked in a numerical order and there has been jumbling of questions, which apparently causes slight confusion, however, the candidates are expected to deal with such situations which may arise on account of human errors while binding up of a question paper booklet. 4. In our opinion, such errors would not vitiate the examination or the result thereto. The candidates who are appearing for aspiring as doctors, would be expected to have that much of I.Q. to deal with such situations. We also noticed apart from the appellant, there was other candidates participated in the examination as has been informed from the same examination center, who have cleared the NEET Examination. We only expect the appellant writ petitioner to be more vigilant in the future and deal with the situation, if again so arises. 5. At the same time, learned counsel for the respondents has also assured that such situations would be dealt with properly and the students would be provided alternate arrangement(s) as quickly as possible, so that they may not face such situation(s) in future. 6. Be that as it may, we do not find it a sufficient cause for interfering either with the result or with the examination conducted by the respondents. 7. Accordingly, the present special appeal writ is dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:29845-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-881/2025] 8. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J Sahil Soni/RIYA/156-Suppl.