Confusion over Booklet cost 30 minutes to NEET Candidates: Kerala HC seeks explanation from NTA

This comes after the candidate alleged that her OMR sheet could be rejected due to the sloppiness of the Invigilator, who distributed OMR sheets after the examination started, the sheets were pre-filled, and the overall confusion cost all the candidates at the center lose around 30 minutes of precious time, adds Live Law.

As a result, the petitioner along with the other candidates in the examination hall lost precious 30 minutes of the total time allotted for the examination, and this negatively affected the prospects of the petitioner in getting admitted to MBBS course, it has been argued.

The matter would be heard by the High Court bench comprising of Justice P.B Suresh Kumar and meanwhile, the court has sought an explanation regarding the issue from NTA, adds Onmanorama.

Also Read: Tamil Nadu NEET aspirant attempts self-immolation fearing result

As per the latest media report by Live Law, the alleged incident took place at Sree Narayana Public School, where the candidate was due to appear for the medical entrance examination. Advocate Santosh Mathew, appearing on the behalf of the candidate argued that even though the candidate reached the examination center by 11 am for formalities and verification and was seated at her allotted room by 12 pm, the candidates didn't receive their booklets until it was 2 pm.

It was further submitted that the Information Bulletin clearly mentioned that the candidates should receive the test booklet including the answer sheets at 1.45 pm., so that during the interval of 15 minutes of time the candidates could carefully fill in their Roll numbers and other details by blackening the bubbles and also check the question paper without any rush.

However, it was alleged that the candidates at that particular center received their test booklet at 2 pm. Further, due to some confusion regarding the booklets they were not permitted to fill up their details by the invigilator.

The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after ten minutes, the test booklets were collected back and another set were distributed, where the booklets were pre-filled and carried the details of another candidate. However, it has been alleged that when the candidate informed this to the invigilator, she was instructed to strike off the details and fill in her details over it.

In this regard, the counsel for the petitioner pointed out that as the computer evaluates the OMR sheets, the instructions given to the candidates specifically mentioned that the software was sensitive and so it was necessary to fill in the details properly.

The instructions further clarified that any tampering with the Answer Sheets and any crossing out or alteration in any manner could lead to the rejection of the same, submitted the petitioner.

The plea mentioned that being aware of this sensitive nature of the software, the candidate became anxious as her OMR sheet could be rejected and also submitted that the examination in the said hall could be started only after 30 minutes of the commencement of the actual examination.

In fact, other formalities including the signature by the Invigilators on the answer sheets were also done during the rest of the two and half hours of time even though they should have been done between the fifteen minutes of interval. As a result, the candidates lost even more of their precious time.

So, the candidates lost more than 30 minutes of the total three hours time that was allotted to the candidates writing NEET.

Contending that loss of precious time is a grave injustice in an examination, where every mark contributes toward a higher mark, the petitioner argued that the incident has adversely affected the possibility of getting a good score in the examination and this would cost her future as well as she would not be able to get admitted in the choice of her medical college.

In fact, the candidate has already approached the NTA via email and requested for a retest. However, she submitted before the High Court that the concerned authorities didn't take any action regarding the matter.

"The inaction on the part of the invigilators at the test centre in exercising due caution and care has exposed candidates like the petitioner to a possible threat of rejection of their OMR sheets," the plea stated.

Thus, moving to the High Court the petitioner has sought a detailed inquiry regarding the issue, prayed for a retest for the petitioner and other candidates who faced the same trouble. As an interim relief the petitioner has requested the High Court that her OMR sheet gets evaluated without rejection pending the disposal of the petitioner.

Listing the matter to be heard next week, the High Court has sought an explanation regarding the issue from the National Testing Agency (NTA), adds Onmanorama.