Delhi High Court
Abid Khan vs National Testing Agency & Ors on 25 September, 2025
$~134
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Delivered on: 25.09.2025
+ W.P.(C) 12858/2025
ABID KHAN .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sumitra Choudhary, Mr. Raghav
Raman, Ms. Nitya Sharma and Ms.
Jasmine Sheikh, Advs.
versus
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Khanna, SC for R-1/NTA
with Ms. Pragya Bhushan, Mr.
Tarandeep Singh, Ms. Vilakshana
Dayma and Ms. Mukta Singh, Advs.
Mr. Raj Kumar, CGSC for R-2/UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed seeking following relief:
"(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction to Respondent No. 1 to recalculate the Petitioner's
OMR evaluation for question No. 137 to 141 and awarding marks
for the five uncounted but correctly marked responses and
thereafter revise the result and rank of the Petitioner based on
corrected marks consequently considering the Petitioner for
admission to Government Medical College in Himachal Pradesh
in the ST Category merit list;
(b) Direct the Respondent No. 1 to keep "one seat reserved" for
the Petitioner in a Government Medical College in his home State
i.e., Himachal Pradesh, pending final adjudication and subject to
the outcome of this Writ Petition."
2. The grievance ventilated by the petitioner in the present petition is
that the petitioner took NEET (UG) 2025 exam and secured 92.5368
percentile. It is stated that when the scanned images of OMR sheet and
recorded responses for NEET (UG) 2025 was uploaded by the National
Testing Agency (NTA)/respondent no.1 on its website, the petitioner
checked the scanned image of OMR sheet and cross-checked the answers
with the answer key provided.
3. Upon checking the same, the petitioner observed that the respondent
no.1/NTA had not considered the responses of the petitioner with regard to
the question nos. 137 to 141.
4. It is further the case of the petitioner that the answers of all the said
five questions of the petitioner were correct and he had marked only one
circle in response to each answer.
5. Ms. Sumitra Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner invites
attention of the Court to the OMR Sheet (Annexure P-2) to contend that all
the aforesaid 05 questions were duly attempted and the petitioner had
marked the circle on correct option / answer as is clearly visible from the
OMR sheet.
6. She submits that the computerized evaluation system failed to
recognise the said responses due to technical reasons even though, the
marking of circle is clearly visible with the naked eye.
7. She submits that the public notice was issued by the respondent
no.1/NTA on 03.06.2025 whereby the candidates were given an opportunity
to challenge the answer key and recorded responses, the petitioner availed
the said opportunity and challenged the questions from 137 to 141 after
depositing the requisite fee. However, no response was received by the
petitioner from the respondent no.1/NTA with regard to the said challenge.
8. In this backdrop, the present petition came to be filed by the
petitioner.
9. The respondent no.1/NTA has filed its counter-affidavit taking the
stand that insofar as the question no.138 is concerned, the petitioner has
been awarded marks for the same. However, with regard to other four (04)
question nos. viz., Q. 137, 139 to 141, the petitioner has opted not to fill the
circle fully, and has put only spot marks, due to which the OMR scanner
could not read the option marks for the said four questions and the same
were treated as 'unanswered' by the OMR scanner.
10. To buttress his contention, Mr. Sanjay Khanna, learned Standing
Counsel for the respondent no.1/NTA has invited attention of the Court to
question nos. 137, 139 to 141 in the OMR sheet. A perusal of the circles
against such said questions numbers shows that the petitioner has only put
spot marks and they have not been darkened fully. The relevant extract
from the OMR sheet is as under:
[relevant questions (Q.Nos.137, 139 to 141) have been encircled]
11. Further, attention of the Court has also been drawn to the instructions
in respect of OMR sheet which are supplied to each candidate along with the
test paper. Referring to the said instructions, Mr. Khanna submits that
complete circle is to be darkened and only one circle for each question is to
be marked in the manner given in the instructions
12. The said instructions clearly mention that the candidate should not
make any stray marks on the answer sheet as such spot marks/stray marks
may be read erroneously by the OMR Scanner.
13. The relevant paragraphs from the counter affidavit reads thus:
"8. It is submitted that all the candidates were fully
informed about the process of filling of OMR Answer Sheet
and it was clearly informed to the candidates with
instruction at Point 4 on page 2 of each OMR Answer Sheet
that "Darken ONLY ONE CIRCLE for each Questions as
shown below:"
"It is pertinent to mention here that at serial no. 6, the
instructions are further read as:
'PLEASE DO NOT MAKE ANY STRAY MARK ON
THE ANSWER SHEET. STRAY SPOT MARKS/
STRAY MARKS MAY BE READ ERRONEOUSLY BY
THE OMR SCANNER."
xxx xxx xxx
9. It is submitted that the Petitioner, even after receiving
the clear instructions, he opted not to DARKEN the circle
completely and left only SPOT MARKS for Q. 137, 139,
140, and 141 due to which the machine could not read
option marked for the said 04 questions and the same have
been treated as "UNANSWERED" by the OMR scanner.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court
that since the Petitioner did not comply with the prior
instructions from NTA about OMR Answer Sheet filing, he
cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong.
Furthermore, if the petitioner was confident of the correct
answers, there was no reason not to darken the circles
completely as instructed. The petitioner's conduct shows
indecision and negligence at the time of exam, and he is
now attempting to retrospectively claim marks after seeing
the final answer key.
xxx xxx xxx
14. Therefore, in light of the facts and circumstances, the
request of the Petitioner for recalculating the OMR for
Q.No. 137 to 141 and awarding marks for the 5 uncounted
but correctly marked responses and to revise the result and
rank, consequently, cannot be acceded to. The Petitioner,
despite clear instructions, left spot marks on the OMR
Answer Sheet, which led to the answers being treated as
UNANSWERED for 04 such questions. It is submitted that
the petitioner's grievance arises solely from his own failure
to darken the circles properly as per prescribed
instructions. The evaluation process adopted by NTA is
uniform, transparent, and uniformly applied to all
candidates; hence, no arbitrariness or illegality can be
attributed. Furthermore, any change in the Results of NEET
(UG) 2025 would adversely affect the ranking of other
candidates, and would ultimately disrupt the allotment
process."
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is to be noted that
every candidate taking the exam i.e. NEET (UG) 2025 was specifically and
clearly informed about the instructions in respect of the filling of the OMR
Sheet, which reads thus:
15. The petitioner was thus, well aware that in case, he does not darken
the circle, as instructed, it will not be scanned by the OMR scanner. As is
evident from the OMR sheet, the petitioner had not darkened complete
circle. Insofar as Q. 140 & 141 are concerned the petitioner has put only
dots, and for Q. 137 & 139 complete circle has not been darkened. It is for
the said reason, the OMR scanner failed to read the answer given by the
petitioner and the he was not awarded marks for the same. Further, the
manner in which circles of aforesaid questions have been darkened, gives an
impression that the petitioner was not sure about the correct answer.
16. The OMR sheets of all candidates were checked by the OMR
scanners, without human interference, therefore, the same yardstick was
applied in case of each candidate. Further, this Court finds that non-
awarding of marks to the petitioner for the aforesaid four questions, is
absolutely in accordance with the instructions given to the candidates in
relation to the OMR sheet. No discrimination or arbitrariness in the process
adopted for checking the OMR sheet has been pointed out, and this Court
finds that there exists none.
17. Pertinently, the Information Bulletin of NEET (UG), 2025 provides
that there is no provision for rechecking/revaluation of the answer sheet for
the reason that the OMRs are machine gradable and are being evaluated
through specific software impartial to all. The relevant clause reads thus:
"13.4 Re-checking/re-evaluation of answer sheets
The machine--gradable Answer Sheets are evaluated with
extreme care and are repeatedly scrutinized.
There is no provision for re-checking/re-evaluation of the
answer sheets. This is because of the following reasons:
i. The OMRs are machine gradable and are being evaluated
through specific software impartial to all.
ii. The candidates are given an opportunity to make the
representation on the OMR gradation of their OMR sheets and
also given an opportunity to challenge the answer key in case
of any doubt.
No correspondence in this regard will be entertained"
18. The law is well settled that Prospectus / Bulletin of Information issued
by Institution / University is binding and no mandamus can be issued to the
educational institutions to act contrary to their own procedure. In this regard
reference may had to be made to the decision of this Court in Sadhana
Yadav vs. Union of India & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3965.
19. In view of the above discussion, the prayer of the petitioner for
recalculation and OMR evaluation for aforesaid four questions cannot be
granted.
20. Therefore, there is no merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the
same is dismissed.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J
SEPTEMBER 25, 2025/dss
