'Counseling Has Started': MP High Court Rejects Belated Plea Of NEET-UG Student Who Filed Wrong Booklet Number In OMR Sheet
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by a NEET UG 2025 candidate who sought relief for the non-declaration of her corrected result due to an alleged error in the OMR sheet. The court noted that the petitioner was aggrieved by a situation arising out of her own mistake, where she had filed the wrong booklet number in her OMR sheet. The court also observed that...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by a NEET UG 2025 candidate who sought relief for the non-declaration of her corrected result due to an alleged error in the OMR sheet.
The court noted that the petitioner was aggrieved by a situation arising out of her own mistake, where she had filed the wrong booklet number in her OMR sheet. The court also observed that the petitioner thereafter remained silent and did not raise the objections in a timely manner.
The bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Hirdesh, thus, opined;
"Considering the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that it was petitioner who was at fault, considering the limited scope of interference in such cases, this Court does not find any reason warranting interference in the present case".
The petitioner claimed that although she was issued booklet no 48, she inadvertently filled in booklet no 46 in the OMR sheet during the examination. The petitioner sought directions against the National Testing Agency (NTA) to consider the marks obtained in booklet no 48 and declare the correct result.
According to the petitioner, the mistake occurred under the pressure of the examination. The petitioner contended that she performed well and that the booklet no. 48 received 573 marks. She argued that the invigilator failed in his duty to verify the OMR details and that the error amounted to a human mistake which should not cost her academic future.
It was also submitted that Clause 13.1.2 of Chapter 13 of the NTA Information Bulletin provided for rechecking of the OMR sheet, and that the authorities failed to act upon her grievance.
The respondent, however, opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner should have been more cautious during the examination procedure. They argued that NTA had provided a post-examination window for a candidate to raise objections regarding the OMR grading, but the petitioner did not avail herself of that opportunity.
The respondents also argued that the petitioner raised the objection only on June 16, 2025, after the expiry of the objection period. The answer key had been uploaded on the same date as the examination, giving the petitioner ample time to act on such issue.
After hearing the parties, the court held that the petitioner was responsible for the error. The bench noted that she had failed to submit objections within the prescribed time period. It was held that she could not now claim rechecking of the OMR sheet.
"Petitioner cannot blame the respondents for her own mistake. The period which was provided by the National Testing Agency for submission of objections, during that period petitioner did not raise any objection and thereafter only on 16th June, 2025 he raised the objections but by that time the objections period was over. Answers key was uploaded by the NTA on the same date of examination, therefore, if petitioner committed any mistake in filling wrong booklet then he should have to raise objections then and there only", the court emphasized.
It further clarified that clause 13.1.2 of the Information Bulletin only allowed representations against the OMR grading for a non-refundable fee and did not cover the correction of booklet numbers or similar errors.
The court thus dismissed the plea.
For Petitioner: Advocate S.P.S. Gurjar
For Respondent: Deputy Solicitor General Praveen Kumar Newaskar
Case Title: Riya Saraf v Union of India (WRIT PETITION NO. 27873 of 2025)