While considering the plea, the HC bench noted that the petitioner's situation was caused by her own mistake and it also observed that the petitioner chose to remain silent and did not raise objections on time.
"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 petition sans merits and deserves dismissal," the bench further observed.
Also Read: NO Re-exam for NEET candidates affected by power outage- MP HC sets aside order
In her plea before the HC bench, the petitioner submitted that in the NEET UG 2025 exam, she was given the booklet No. 48. However, she allegedly filled booklet no. 46 in the OMR sheet. Allegedly, the petitioner complained in this regard to the authorities bit no heed was paid to it.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that technicality is permitted to be prevailed over a meritorious candidate. He argued that due to pressure of the exam, the petitioner mentioned the wrong booklet number in her OMR sheet and now the authorities are adamant not to correct the same, while clause 13.1.2 of Chapter 13 (Post Examination Activities and Declaration of Result) of Information Bulletin issued by National Testing Agency provides provision for rechecking of OMR sheet.
It was argued that the mistake was a human error which could not be permitted to comprise the petitioner's career. Further, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the invigilator did not perform his duty as he was required to verify the details of every aspirant. He claimed that the petitioner performed very well and the booklet no 48. which was allotted to her, received 573 marks.
On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents including the Union Government and the National Testing Agency (NTA) opposed the submission and prayed that the petitioner should be conversant to the process of NEET examinations and should have been more cautious. They argued that if any mistake was committed then the petitioner had to respond then and there.
They also pointed out that after the exam, the window was opened soliciting objections from the aspirants but no such objection was submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, they prayed for the dismissal of the plea.
While considering the matter, the HC bench perused the record and the submissions of the parties and noted that "it is clear that after examination of NEET (UG), respondents solicited objections from the candidates at their portal but petitioner failed to do so. Now petitioner is seeking the relief of rechecking of his OMR sheet whereas counseling is started."
"So far as the submission pertaining to provision in relation to rechecking of OMR sheet is concerned, the same is not correct because clause 13.1.2 does not deal such exigency," further noted the bench.
Clause 13.1.2 of Chapter 13 of Information Bulletin issued by National Testing Agency states: Applicants will be given an opportunity to submit representation against the OMR grading by paying a non-refundable processing fee of Rs.200/- per question challenged.
Taking note of this, the Court held that the petitioner could not blame the respondents for her own mistake as she did not raise any objection during the period which was provided by NTA for the submission of objections and only on 16th June, 2025, she raised the objections when the objections period was over.
With this observation, the HC bench dismissed the plea.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/riya-saraf-vs-union-of-india-295638.pdf
Also Read: NEET 2025: NTA Declares Results for power outage affected MP Candidates
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.