Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140322-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25469 of 2025 Petitioner :- Najish Siddiqui Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Prabodh Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Akanksha Sharma,Anurag Sharma,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. 1. Heard Shri Arvind Prabodh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Anurag Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.2; Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Ms. Akanksha Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 2. The present writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of Constitution of India inter-alia with following reliefs:- "I. Issue writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus directing the respondents to produce the OMR Sheet as well as answer sheet of the petitioner having Role No. 4432103149 of National Eligibility-Cum- Entrance [NEET (UG)]-2025. II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to conduct an enquiry with regard to existence of two score card in different dates and further after re-evaluating the OMR Sheet of the petitioner having Role No. 4432103149 declared the result of the petitioner. III. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature of petitioner for admission in medical courses as per her marks obtain in examination after re-evaluation of OMR Sheet." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to general category (female). She appeared in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (Under Graduate)-2025 (in short, NEET (UG) 2025), which was conducted by National Testing Agency (NTA) on 04.05.2025 (Sunday) from 02:00 PM to 05:00 PM (IST). She was accorded Roll No.4432103149 and accordingly, e-admit card was also issued in her favour. Thereafter, the result was declared on the official website of NTA on 14.06.2025. The petitioner claimed that she had downloaded the result on 19.06.2025 with I.P. Address 42.105.132.204 and application no.250410945364 at about 10:30:02 in which she obtained 580 marks, out of 720 and her category rank (general) was shown as 3029 with All India Rank as 9912. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner again downloaded her score card on 16.07.2025 at about 14:40:52 with I.P. Address 103.157.11.94, wherein different score card was shown mentioning 162 marks, out of 720 with general category rank as 303087 and All India rank as 992279. He submits that in the facts and circumstances, the direction be issued to the respondents to re-check the OMR sheet of the petitioner. 5. Per contra, Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the NTA resisted the relief and placed the public notice dated 03.06.2025, which was published on the official website of the NTA. He has also placed before the Court the original copies of score card, OMR sheet of the petitioner, final answer key of Test Booklet Code-45 and calculation sheet. The photocopies are also provided to the petitioner’s counsel. 6. He submits that the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), now renamed as Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education, Government of India, has established the NTA as an independent, autonomous and self-sustained premier testing organisation registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 to conduct efficient, transparent and international standard test in order to access the competency of candidates for admission to premier higher education institutions across the country. 7. Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the NTA further submits that the NEET (UG) 2025) was conducted by the NTA on 04.05.2025. Later on, the NTA had issued public notice dated 03.06.2025 2 of 7 while uploading the provisional answer keys, scanned images of OMR answer sheet and recorded responses for NEET (UG) 2025) on the official website https:/neet.nta.nic.in/ for the purpose of any challenge to the same. He submits that to facilitate the candidates further, a scanned image of the OMR answer sheet has been sent on the registered e-mail address given by the candidates at the time of registration of NEET (UG) 2025). Accordingly, the candidates were accorded an opportunity to make an online response challenge to the answer key as well as the recorded response. The details were also provided to submit processing fee for answer key challenge and recorded response challenge and the same had to commence w.e.f. 03.06.2025 till 05.06.2025 (upto 11:50 PM). Further the candidates were required to visit the website of the NTA and view the details and challenge, if required. 8. Learned counsel for the NTA further submits that in the instant matter, admittedly, at no point of time the petitioner had made any online response challenge to the provisional answer key. He has also placed reliance on the e-mail communication made to the petitioner on the registered e-mail dated 05.06.2025 at 9:22 AM alongwith OMR sheet. The candidates were required to visit the website of the NTA and view the details and challenge, if required. It was made clear that no challenge will be entertained without receipt of the processing fee and the challenges will not be accepted through any other mode of communication. He further submits that it is an admitted case that the petitioner has not filed any such objection in response to the public notice, however, adequate information was also sent to the registered email address furnished by the candidates. The score card has been issued as per the recorded response of the petitioner, as is evident from the calculation sheet. In absence of any challenge to the recorded responses, the petitioner cannot dispute the marks awarded to her which are strictly in terms of the final answer key of Test Booklet Code-45. 3 of 7 9. He has further raised an objection that two score cards have been appended as Annexure Nos.4 and 5 to the writ petition. He submits that on the face of record, the first score card, which is appended as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition, is the fake one. In the said score card, the petitioner claimed that she secured 580 marks out of 720 and her category (general) rank is 3029. The correct copy of the score card is also appended as Annexure No.5 to the writ petition, wherein she secured only 162 marks, out of 720 with category rank as 303087 and All India rank as 991279. To demonstrate this fact, he invited the attention of the Court to the ‘Font’ used in the fake score card, which is appended as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. The said ‘font’ is apparently distinct and different from the font of the original score card, which is appended as Anexure No.5 and the same can be assessed by the Hon’ble Court from a bare perusal of the same. He submits that the alleged score card is fake and fictitious document, whereas the correct score card is appended as Annexure No.5 to the writ petition. The same very document was available on the website of the NTA and correct copy of the score card has also been provided during the course of the day. 10. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the paras 10 and 11 of the judgement passed by the Division Bench in Kumar Sambhav Pal vs. Union of India and another reported in 2021 (2) ADJ 414. He submits that the entire claim has been set up on the basis of forged and fictitious score card while the marks awarded to the petitioner fully corresponds to the recorded response of the petitioner to which she had raised no challenge within the window provided. As such, he submits that the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. 11. We have proceeded to examine the record in question and perused the instructions, as provided by the NTA and found that the entire claim has been set up by the petitioner on the basis of Score Card, which is appended as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. For ready reference, both 4 of 7 the score cards, which are appended as Annexure Nos.4 and 5 to the writ petition, are extracted hereinafter:- 5 of 7 12. A bare perusal of the alleged score card (Annexure No.4) would show that font of the alleged score card is different from the correct score card (Annexure No.5). We do not find any credence to the alleged score card, which is heavily relied upon by the petitioner and it does not inspire confidence of the Court to take a different view for authentication of the said document. Moreover, learned counsel for the NTA has also placed the calculation sheet of the petitioner, wherein it is reflected that out of 180 questions, the petitioner had made wrong attempts in 74 questions; responded 59 correct questions and she secured total 162 marks. Accordingly, the score card has been issued (appended as Annexure No.5) containing 162 marks. 13. In Kumar Sambhav Pal vs Union of India and another (supra) the Division Bench had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the evaluation undertaken by the examining bodies should not be viewed with suspicion unless it is prima facie established that it was not fair or transparent. Relevant paragraph nos.10 and 11 of the judgement are extracted as under:- “10. The NEET is one of the highest competitive examination, opening opportunities for students to get into the most prestigious medical colleges. The NEET (UG)-2020 examination was smoothly held amid strict precautions in view of the COVID-19 pandemic on 13.9.2020 on the given schedule in a secure and healthy atmosphere by following all the directions and advisories sincerely. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, 85-90 percent of 15.97 lakh candidates appeared for NEET (UG)-2020 examination. The NTA released the answer keys of the NEET (UG)-2020 on 26.9.2020 and the aspirants were able to download the code-wise official NEET (UG)-2020 question paper with solutions from the NTA official website and challenge it as well. Admittedly, the petitioner did not challenge his answer key uploaded by the NTA on the official website. Thereafter, the NTA declared the final result on 16.10.2020 wherein, he had secured only 146 marks out of 720. 11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the evaluation undertaken by the examining bodies should not be viewed with suspicion unless it is prima facie established that it was not fair or transparent. Such challenge may only be accepted unless it be well substantiated and found to rest on a strong pedestal which is likely to succeed. In the present matter, the detailed instruction, as enumerated above, clearly transpires to the Court that the entire pleading has been set up on vague and evasive grounds.” 6 of 7 14. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, once we inclined to dismiss the writ petition with exemplary costs, then learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that as the petitioner is a student and having bright future, the instant writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 K.Tiwari 7 of 7 Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad