Pritipragnya Mallik vs Union Of India & Others ..... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 10458 Ori

Orissa High Court

Pritipragnya Mallik vs Union Of India & Others ..... Opposite ... on 26 November, 2025

Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo

Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                W.P.(C) No. 24344 of 2025
       An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India


Pritipragnya Mallik                                                 .....                      Petitioner

                                                             -versus-
Union of India & others                                              .....           Opposite Parties


Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner                        : Ms. Saswati Mohapatra, Advocate

For Opp. Parties                      : Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with
                                        Mr. S.S. Kashyap, Sr. Panel Counsel
                                        (for Opposite Parties No.1 to 3)
                                        Mr. Subir Palit, Sr. Advocate along with
                                        Mr. Amitav Mishra, Advocate
                                        (for Opposite Party No.4)


                                              CORAM:
 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
                                                  AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
                                        JUDGMENT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dates of hearing :17th September, 2025 and 22nd September, 2025 Date of judgment : 26th November, 2025

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PER MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.

The petitioner appeared in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (Undergraduate) [NEET (U.G.)], 2025-26 for admission to undergraduate M.B.B.S. course. By filing the writ petition she seeks interference of this Court to declare her successful in the examination.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner extensively, particularly on 22.09.2025 for the entire day of Court hours. The learned DSGI, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for opposite parties were heard at length in their response. The Director, Legal National Testing Agency (NTA) was present in person and also through V.C. mode and assisted the Court in response to the specific queries of the Court on different dates of hearing.

The Writ Petition and submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner and discussions by the Court

3. It is suggested in the petition that there is some discrepancy in the application number of the petitioner and after much effort she has been able to find out her result, marks secured to be 'Zero' in her NEET U.G. 2025-26 for admission to undergraduate MBBS Course.

4. The Optical Mark Reader Answer Sheet (OMR Sheet) of the petitioner, in the examination appeared by the petitioner was produced in original, kept in sealed cover, by the opposite parties No.1 to 3. The sealed cover was opened, and the contents were perused by us.

5. The original OMR answer sheet has the following distinct features, it contains the Bar Code, contains one of the Biometric indicators i.e. the left thumb impression of the candidate (petitioner), signature of the petitioner along with time of putting the signature, name of the petitioner written herself in her own handwriting, her mother's name handwritten by her and her father's name handwritten by her, signature of the two invigilators in the exam hall with time. The roll number has been written by the petitioner herself in her own handwriting and also the text booklet number in her handwriting. The

pen used by the petitioner in black ink. The entries made look to be identical to the naked eye for all the entries made by her in her handwriting. The Bar Code and the answer-sheet number has been written in hand by the petitioner which matches with the answer- sheet number.

6. Considering the fact that the petitioner may have been motivated in making allegations as she is very young, appearing at a very tough competitive entrance examination; before considering the discrepancies in the documents relied on by the petitioner annexed to the writ petition and the originals produced by opposite parties 1 to 3 and 4, we have asked the learned counsel for the petitioner that the original OMR Sheet as we have seen after opening the sealed cover does not match with Annexure-4 suggested by the petitioner to be her OMR Sheet. However, learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that the copy of OMR sheet, copy annexed as Annexure-4 is correct and actual and not the original one produced in sealed cover by the opposite parties no.2 and 3-NTA before the Court.

7. Referring to Annexure-4, the following has been stated in the writ petition: -

"3.(c). It is permitted to mention here that the Petitioner downloaded the OMR sheet and final Answer key for Test Book Code No.46 on 02.06.2025. Result was published on 14.06.2025. The Petitioner has secured total 576 marks, out of total 720 marks.

Copy of the OMR Sheet along with final answer, is filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-4.

Copy of the Score Card, is filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-5." (sic)

8. Before proceeding to take up the matter, we had asked the learned counsel for the petitioner for her response to our prima facie

finding that copies of correct documents have not been annexed. In response, she replied that she is not being given any opportunity to respond. Obviously, she grossly misunderstood the proposition of the Court that since we will be considering the matter on merit regarding various acts of commission involving a youth, we had asked her whether after finding the Annexure-4 not to be correct, we should further examine the veracity of other allegations made by the petitioner or dispose of the matter at that stage. The learned counsel has been given full opportunity to explain the case of the petitioner and the proceeding being in hybrid mode are recorded and kept for reference.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed further affidavit dated 17.09.2025, without seeking any leave from the Court after notices were issued. However, the affidavit was taken on record, keeping the issue open whether such affidavit could be filed after notices were issued to the opposite parties. The affidavit contains further averments of the petitioner and further annexures are also enclosed.

The opposite parties without prejudice to their rights and contentions in counter already filed were directed to obtain instructions in response to the averments made in the affidavit dated 17.09.2025 and the newly added Annexures-11 to 16.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to paragraph- 3(a) of the writ petition, which is reproduced herein:-

"The Petitioner is a candidate for NEET (U.G.) 2025-2026 and she filled up the for aforesaid Examination. The Petitioner has been preparing for the aforesaid Examination for last 6 years and 4 times she appeared in the said Examination. The Petitioner applied for NEET (U.G.) and the same has been confirmed on 02.02.2025

and Application was mentioned as 250410852162 (in short

62).

Copy of the Admit Card, issued dated 20.02.2025, is filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-1"

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner was asked regarding the 'application confirmation page' generated by the candidate as she has annexed the copy of the said page to the writ petition marked as Annexure-1. The Annexure-1 to the writ petition is distinctly different from what has been produced by the National Testing Agency (NTA) under the Ministry of Education, Government of India, annexed to their counter affidavit marked as Annexure-A/2.

In response: on instruction from the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stands by the Annexure-1 which she has filed before this Court supported by affidavit, though it varies with the 'confirmation page' produced, the coloured photocopy of which is filed before the Court annexed to the counter affidavit on behalf of opposite parties No.1, 2 and 3, marked as Annexure-A/2 at page-18 of the affidavit.

12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition which has been stated to be the 'copy of the Admit Card' issued in favour of the petitioner; Annexure-3 to be the 'copy of text booklet'; Annexure-4 to be the 'Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) answer sheet'; 'copy of the Score Card' is annexed to the Writ Petition marked as Annexure-5 and copy of the 'e-mail to the petitioner' is also annexed marked as Annexure-6.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she has done lot of research and her contention is that the copies of documents produced by the opposite parties annexed to their counter is not correct, they have purposefully filed the said documents before

this Court to mislead the Court. Apart from the averments of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that she is herself confident that Annexure-1 to the writ petition as at page-10 is the proper document and not Annexure-A/2 at page-18 of the counter of the Opposite Party Nos.1, 2 and 3.

13. The relevant paragraphs of the Writ Petition describing the above referred annexures i.e. paragraphs-3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e) and 3(f) are reproduced herein for our consideration and analysis:

"3. (a): The Petitioner is a candidate for NEET (U.G.) 2025-2026 and she filled up the for aforesaid Examination. The Petitioner has been preparing for the aforesaid Examination for last 6 years and 4 times she appeared in the said Examination. The Petitioner applied for NEET (U.G.) and the same has been confirmed on 02.02.2025 and Application was mentioned as 250410852162 (in short 162). Copy of the Confirmation, dated 20.02.2025, is filed herewith and marked as ANNEXlJRE-1.

3.(b). Pursuant to the application No. 162, Admit Card was issued to the Petitioner on 01.05.2025 with same Application No. as mentioned. The Petitioner appeared in the Examination on 04.05.2025. The Petitioner has been given Test Booklet with Code No. '46' with Test Booklet Number.

Copy of the Admit Card, issued in favour of the Petitioner, is filed herewith as ANNEXURE-2. Copy of the Test Booklet, is filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-3.

3.(c). It is pertinent to mention here that the Petitioner downloaded the OMR sheet and final Answer key for Test Book Code No.46 on 02.06.2025. Result was published on

14.06.2025. The Petitioner has secured total 579 marks, out of total 720 marks.

Copy of the OMR Sheet along with final answer, is filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-4 Copy of the Score Card, is filed herewith, and marked as ANNEXURE-5

3.(d). It is not out of place to mention here that the Score Card also reveals that the Application No. is 162. On 29.07.2025 the Petitioner received E-mail from NTA for Documents Verification of the Petitioner. The Petitioner also allotted a Verification Code i.e. 1Q5010. Copy of the E-mail of the Petitioner, is filed herewith as ANNEXURE-6.

3.(e). Odisha Joint Entrance Examination published Revised Final State Merit List and the Petitioner has been assigned State Position at 211, indicating Application No. 162. Copy of the Revised State Merit List, published, is filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-7.

3.(f). When the Petitioner was unable to generate the Score Card, filed a On-line Complaint before the Authorities. In response to same, the Authorities have given an E-mail, stating therein that due to some technical issues, this thing was happening and Registration for State Counseling is successful and reiterated that Application No. is 162.

Copy of the E-mail of the Authority, is filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-8.

Copy of the Score Card downloaded for State Counseling, is filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-

9."

14. It is stated and submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the annexures those have been marked and annexed to the Writ Petition are copies of the originals downloaded from official website of National Testing Agency/National Informatics Centre/Odisha Joint Entrance Examination (NTA/NIC/OJEE) as the case may be. It is submitted, though it is not stated in the Writ Petition, that the copy of the OMR answer sheet is available for only three days in the NTA website on 04.08.2025, 05.08.2025 and 06.08.2025.

15. It is submitted that in Annexure-5 i.e. scorecard issued by the NTA for National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET)(UG)- 2025, below the photograph, 'there is a unique number' mentioned.

16. The learned counsel referred to another number which is part of the said Annexure-5 i.e. above the table, "Cut-off percentile mark and marks as per NMC/DCI/NCISM Regulations" to submit that the said number in the right hand margin above the table is also an 'unique number'.

17. It is submitted and asserted that Anneuxre-5 at page-16 to the Writ Petition is the Scorecard of the petitioner and not what has been produced by the NTA annexed to the Writ Petition marked as Annexure-10 series(Pages-21 to 23 to the writ petition), which includes a series of documents i.e. scorecard, OMR answer sheet and calculation sheet.

It is submitted that the two 'identification numbers' as are suggested above, are same as at page-21 and page -16 of the Writ Petition. It is suggested and submitted that page-21 is incorrect and page-16 is correct.

The learned counsel referred to the 'Quick Response Code' ('QR Code') as contained in Annexure-5, page-16 to submit that, if it is scanned, the QR code would show the roll number of the petitioner to be '3604106090', but concededly no application number is shown if the QR code is scanned.

17.1. The learned counsel then referred to Annexure-10 to the Writ Petition at page-21 of the brief to submit and highlighted the table i.e. captioned 'percentile obtained' which is reproduced herein:

It is submitted, the percentile obtained in the subjects i.e. Physics, Chemistry, Biology (Botany and Zoology) would not add up to Percentile (based on total marks obtained) is 0.7223952 (Zero point Seven Two Two Three Nine Five Two Only).

18. Thereafter, the learned counsel referred to page-22, it is submitted that page-22, as has been produced by the NTA does not show optical mark (bubble made by the examinee) in any of the answers; thus a question is raised: if any answer is not bubbled then how the percentile can come to be 0.7223952.

19. Referring to page-21 at the bottom of the page which mentions IP address-14.139.49.130, application no. 250410852174 and date & time 25/08/2025, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Annexure-10 at page-21 has been received from the counselling center of Odisha Joint Entrance Examination (OJEE) counselling cell in the office of the OJEE at Pokhariput, Bhubaneswar as indicated in the said page at 09:57:23 hours on 25.08.2025.

20. It is submitted that in contrast, Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition i.e. copy of the Scorecard that has been downloaded by the

petitioner with IP address-49.42.179.110, application No.250410852162 and date & time-14/06/2025 15:31:07 hours.

21. It is submitted that due to certain errors that could happen, like "data entry bug", "algorithm bug", "mistake of the Data Entry Operator", page-16 shows the application number at the bottom and the top to be 250410852162, whereas the one that has been produced by the opposite party-NTA annexed to the Writ Petition at page-21 shows the application number to be 250410852174, both at the top and the bottom.

22. The sealed cover envelops produced by the opposite parties-NTA, the documents contained in the sealed cover were again sealed and retained by the Court to be kept in second sealed cover. For convenience of reference the sealed envelopes were marked (1) to (4). The opened envelope (1) containing "Original copy of OMR No.3604106090, Pritipragnya Mallik, NEET (UG)- 2025. The other envelopes are: (2) Original office copy of OMR Roll No.3604106090, Pritipragnya Mallik, NEET (UG)-2025, (3) Original Pink Envelop Roll No.3604106090, Pritipragnya Mallik, NEET (UG)-2025 and (4) Original copy of Attendance sheet Roll No.364106090, Pritipragnya Mallik, NEET (UG)-2025.

Counter Affidavits and Submissions of the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1, 2 and 3 and discussions by the Court

23. We have heard Mr. Satya Sindhu Kashyap, learned Senior Panel counsel along with Mr. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) in presence of the Director (Legal) of National Testing Agency (NTA) being present in VC.

It is submitted by Mr. Kashyap, that the opposite parties No.1, 2 and 3, strongly dispute the contention of the petitioner

regarding the copies of the original downloaded documents to have been annexed to the writ petition.

24. It is submitted that the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties No.1, 2 and 3 annexing the corresponding documents those are available in the website of the National Testing Agency has been confirmed by the National Informatics Centre (NIC), which is independent and no way connected with the NTA as far as independence and administration is concerned. The computer server storing the digital data and the website is not managed by NTA but is managed by NIC which has not been made a party.

At this stage, we reiterate that we had directed NIC to preserve the data through the learned DSGI for Union of India as NIC is an independent authority under the Union of India.

It is further clarified by the learned DSGI that NIC which maintains the production of digital transfer and storage of digital data is under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India.

25. The learned Senior Panel Counsel emphatically denied the submission of the petitioner that the petitioner disputes the application number allotted to the petitioner as she claims to end with '162'. It is submitted as per NTA data obtained from the NIC, the application number ends with '174'.

The learned Senior Panel Counsel drew our attention to Annexure-1, page 10 of the writ petition to be compared with Annexure-A/2, internal page-18 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties No.1, 2 and 3. At this stage, the learned Senior Panel Counsel produced the sealed envelope produced by

the NIC in Court, which was opened. He submitted that he did not have opportunity to go through the contents of the sealed envelope.

26. We find the envelope is captioned: (i) the letter No.NIC/PEP/NEET/2025/22 dated 19.09.2025 issued by the HoD- Public Examination Projects Division, National Informatic Centre, New Delhi under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India (ii) copy of the original application No.250410852174 of the petitioner, Pritipragnya Mallik with her original fingerprints, (iii) NEET (UG)-2025 Admit Card-Provisional issued in favour of the petitioner having her signature on it, counter signed by the Invigilator concern, her thumb impression (iv) Original application No.250410852162 issued in the name of Mane Kshitija Vitthal, a female /OBC-NCL (central list candidate) from Sangli, Maharashtra. The said envelope is marked as 'Envelope-5'.

27. It is submitted by the Senior Panel Counsel that the 'confirmation page of application number', the 'ten fingerprints digitally captured' have been obtained with the forwarding letter from the National Informatic Centre, addressed to the Joint Director, Examination National Testing Agency, issued by the HOD, i.e. Head of the Department/ Examination/ Project Division. It is submitted that based upon the said data/ information/ revelation by the NIC, the NTA disputes the Annexure-1 submitted and relied upon by the petitioner to be the 'confirmation page of application number'.

Documents produced by the Opposite Parties and the submissions made thereon

28. On consent of the learned DSGI and learned Senior Panel Counsel also endorses by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we scan and reproduce the letter No. NIC/PEP/NEET/2025/22 dated 19.09.2025, in original as contained in the sealed cover-5 to be the part of our order so that we can deal with the documents annexed to the said letter reproduced in the subsequent eight pages of judgment.

Purposefully, we are not reproducing the other documents

received from the NIC.

29. The learned Senior Panel Counsel referred to the Annexurer-2 to the writ petition produced in original and the copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition purportedly being copy of 'Admit Card' issued in favour of the petitioner. He refers to Annexure-B/2 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties No.1, 2 and 3, (internal page-19) to submit that Annexure- B/2, as has been annexed to the counter is the correct document not Annexure-2 to the writ petition.

The learned Senior Panel Counsel referred to Annexure-4 of the writ petition at page-14 of the brief i.e. copy of the OMR Sheet. He submitted that said document Annexure-4 is forged, recreated and manufactured one. He asserts NTA relies on the Annexure-E/2 series at page -28 of their counter affidavit.

30. The learned Senior Panel Counsel referred to paragraphs-8, 9 and 10 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties No.1, 2 and 3, to substantiate his submission that the documents relied on up by the petitioner i.e. Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 are not the correct documents. He referred to paragraph-11, 12, 13 and 14, to substantiate his arguments that the documents annexed to the writ petition marked as Annexure-4 (at pages 14 and 15 of the Writ Petition) are 'forged documents'. We reproduce the relied upon paragraphs-8, 9 and 10 from counter:

"8.That, in response to the said Public Notice, the Petitioner registered online for NEET (UG) 2025 with Application Number: 250410852174 and submitted the said Application Form on 20.02.2025.

A copy of the Confirmation Page of her Online Application Form as per the record of NTA is filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A/2.

9. That the NEET (UG) 2025 Exam was conducted by NTA on 04.05.2025 from 02:00 P.M to 05:00 P.M in Pen and Paper Mode (OMR based) in 13 languages for 22,76,069 lakhs candidates at 5468 Examination Centers in 552 Cities across India and in 14 cities outside India.

10. That the petitioner appeared in NEET (UG)-2025 as a Candidate with Application Number: 250410852174, Roll Number:3604106090 and Test Booklet Code-'46' on 04.05.2025 from 2:00 PM to 5:00 PM at College of Basic Science & Humanities, OUAT, Bhubaneshwar, Odisha (Centre Code: 3604106).

A copy of the Admit Card issued online to the petitioner by NTA with Application Number:

250410852174, Roll Number:3604106090, is filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE- B/2."

31. We also reproduce the paragraphs-11, 12, 13 & 14 of the counter affidavit filed by opposite parties No.1, 2 & 3 herein below:-

"11. That, the OMR Answer Sheets collected from the candidates were placed/packed in the prescribed paper envelope and the same was sealed by the Room Invigilators in front of the candidates in the exam rooms itself. As proof of the sealing of the envelope in the exam room itself, two candidates signed that envelope as witness. After this, the sealed paper envelope(s) were taken by the Room Invigilators to the Control Room of the Exam Center. As per the packing instructions of NTA, the Centre Superintendent in the presence of the Independent Observer(s) deployed by NTA at the exam center, placed the sealed paper envelopes collected from all the exam rooms at the Control Room of the Centre, along with other prescribed envelopes containing attendance sheets and absentee proforma, appendices, etc. inside a sealed trunk. The said sealed trunk(s) from all the exam centres (including the exam Centre of the petitioner) were later on

received by the City Coordinator of NTA in Bhubaneshwar. OMR Answer Sheets, Attendance Sheets, etc. received in sealed covers from the Exam Centres were handed over in sealed trunk(s) by the City Coordinator to the India Post on the same day for dispatching them to NTA Headquarters in New Delhi.

The copy of the paper envelope in which OMR Answer Sheets of the Candidates in the Room (Assembly-

4) including that of the petitioner, that was received in sealed condition at NTA HQ (with the signature of the petitioner as one of the witnesses of the sealing of the same in the exam room), is filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-C/2"

12. That, the sealed paper envelopes containing the original OMR Answer Sheets of the candidates received in sealed envelopes / trunks at NTA Headquarters were opened by the authorized Secrecy Team of NTA and were scanned by using OMR scanner machines in a fully secured environment for evaluation purposes. In the entre process, there is no scope for anyone tampering with the OMR Answer Sheet of any candidate (including the petitioner).

13. That, the scanned copy of the OMR Answer Sheet (bearing Answer Sheet No. 115721626), which was submitted by the Petitioner at her exam centre and subsequently scanned / evaluated in secured environment at NTA Headquarter in New Delhi (after the receiving of the same from the exam centres along-with others in sealed condition), was displayed to her on 03.06.2025 (and not on 02.06.2025 as claimed by her), under intimation through Public Notice dated 03.06.2025.This scanned copy of the OMR Answer Sheet remained available to her online till 05.06.2025. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the Petitioner did not raise any objection or challenge to her OMR Sheet /Responses obtained therefrom, which was displayed to her during the said official challenge window. Further, the petitioner has visited the Website of the NTA 96 times but has preferred silent for all these months and now has come up with

certain forged documents which are not as per the record of these 0pp. Parties.

The copy of the Public Notice dated 03.06.2025, vide which challenge to OMR Answer Sheet and Provisional Answer Keys were invited from all candidates (including the petitioner), is filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE- D/2.

14. That, the scanned copy of the petitioner's OMR Answer Sheet (bearing Answer Sheet No.115721626) was also sent to her on her on 05.06.2025 registered email id- [email protected], with CC to her alternate registered email id [email protected]. However, supply of scanned copy of her OMR answer sheet through the said email ids, has been suppressed by the petitioner in her writ application to gain undue advantage of marks awarded to her over other genuine candidates.

The Copy of the said email as well as the scanned copy of her OMR Answer Sheet which was sent through this email, are filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE- E/2 SERIES."

32. It is submitted that the application number would be found both at top horizontal table at Annexure-1 as well as Annexure- A/2, the first digits '25041' are common for the entire Country of India for all candidates appearing in NEET (UG)-2025. The next seven digits are distinct to the candidate. Annexure-1 produced by the candidate stated to have been downloaded from the website of NTA indicates the last two digits to be '62' whereas it is emphasized by the NTA and confirmed by the NIC that the last two digits are '74' for the petitioner.

It is further submitted that the customer ID starts with '25041......'. The customer ID as indicated in Annexure-1 of the writ petition though not distinct but seems to be 25041085216201250220144733. When the opposite parties have

obtained the same from the NIC and it is clearly visible that the customer ID is "25041085217401250220144733'

33. Referring to the Annexure-2 of the writ petition i.e. page- 11 and compared with Annexure-B/2 at page-19 of the counter affidavit, it is brought to our notice that the documents contain a 'QR Code' and a roll number 'bar code'. The bar code itself is captioned as roll number bar code which when scanned gives the roll number i.e. 3604106090 and is not disputed by the petitioner to be her roll number.

It is submitted that the QR Code given at Annexure-2 (by the petitioner) when scanned, does not disclose any document / details such as the application number, roll number, centre number, name of the candidate, which is otherwise available in the QR Code available in the page-19 of the counter affidavit of the Opposite Parties 1, 2 and 3.

Responding to Annexure-4 of the writ petition it is submitted by the learned Senior Panel Counsel that it is a manufactured, recreated and forged document.

34. Responding to Annexure-5 produced by the candidate- petitioner marked as Annexure-5 at page-16, learned Senior Panel Counsel as well as the Director, Legal of NTA being present in VC referred to Annexure-F/2, page-31 of their counter affidavit. It is brought to the Court's notice that "percentile obtained" table, produced by the petitioner at Annexure-5 (page 16 of writ petition), the numericals towards righthand side of the decimal remain intact. However, towards left at the 10 th place for Physics '8' has been substituted for '1'; for Chemistry, '9' has been added at the 10th place; for Biology, '9' has been added; and to the 'total

percentile' '9' has been added in the 10th position towards left of the decimal. It is submitted that numericals remaining towards the right of decimal being intact, and only the numerical at the 10th position to the left of the decimal, getting changed, is mathematically impossible.

35. The learned Senior Panel Counsel referring to the Annexure-6 of the writ petition submitted that the purported copy of the e-mail opened apparently in a mobile phone on "Wednesday, 20 Aug. 11.10" have been verified and it is ascertained from NIC that no such e-mail was ever sent by the NTA or NIC to the petitioner or to any other student/candidate for that matter. The learned counsel relies on the paragraph-24 of the counter, that is reproduced herein:-

"24.That, petitioner at para 3 (d) in her writ application (page 4) has claimed that she received an Email from NTA on 29.07.2025 with Verification Code 1Q5010 for documents (Annexure-6 of the writ application). However, a bare perusal of Annexure-6 shows that it is an SMS from 'ADNICECN-S', and not an e-mail from NTA. Moreover, NTA does not carry out document verification of the candidates, nor it allots any verification code in this regard, as this is the role of Counselling Authorities."

36. Referring to the Annexure-8(page-19) of the writ petition the same submission is made by the learned Senior Panel Counsel Mr. Kashyap along with learned DSGI, Mr. P.K. Parhi that the 'e- mail' is neither sent by the NTA nor by the NIC as is also asserted in the counter of the OJEE.

37. The learned DSGI along with learned Senior Panel Counsel refer to the Annexure-G/2 series that is at page-35 of their counter. They draw our attention to page-40 that shows the

application number ending with '74'; it shows the application number of the petitioner and it is submitted that as per the report obtained from the NIC by NTA, referring to the attempts made by the petitioner to look into website; the details of attempts consistently show 96 times, the application number of the petitioner to be 250410852174.

38. Paragraphs-18, 19 and 20 of the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties no.1 to 3 are reproduced below:

"18. That, her actual Application No. for NEET (UG) 2025 is 250410852174, which has been generated at the time of registration of online application form by the petitioner herself and the same has been reflected in the documents relating to the petitioner as cited above by NTA. However, this Application No. has been changed to 250410852162 by the petitioner in the confirmation page as Annexure-1 at page 10, admit card as Annexure-2 at page 11, score card as Annexure-5 at page 16 and Annexure-9 at page 20.

19. The petitioner has relied upon the OMR answer sheet enclosed as Annexure-4 at page 14 of the writ application to substantiate her score of 579 marks. The copy of the OMR Answer Sheet, which has been filed by the Petitioner as Annexure - 4 of the Petition, is not as per the record of NTA and the same is vehemently denied. As mentioned earlier in para 14 above, the OMR Answer Sheet maintained by NTA in respect of the petitioner, is the one which was sent to her through email and enclosed to this reply as ANNEXURE-E/2 SERIES and as confirmed by NIC vide their Letter dated 07.09.2025 at ANNEXURE-G/2 SERIES. As per this official OMR Answer Sheet in respect of the petitioner with Application No.: 250410852174 is without any answer/response marked against any question. In contrast, the OMR Answer Sheet annexed by the Petitioner as Annexure-4 depicts responses marked against most of the questions. It is evident that the said document is a fabricated or manipulated

version, created by the petitioner with the intention of falsely projecting a higher score.

20. That the copy of the scorecard, which has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure-5 at page 16 of the writ application, does not tally with the copy of the Score Card enclosed by her as Annexure-10 at page 21 of the writ application which matches with the score card as per the official record of NTA. The QR code on the Score Card at Annexure-5 (page 16) and Annexure-9 (page 20), upon scanning, redirects to NIC Server and confirms that the Candidate's Application No. is '250410852174', Roll No. is '3604106090', marks awarded to her is '0' and NEET All India Rank (AIR) is '2191941'. On the other hand, the QR Code on Annexure-10 (page 21) of the writ application, upon scanning, redirects to NIC Server and confirms that the Candidate's Application No. is '250410852174',Roll No. is '3604106090', marks awarded to her is '0' and NEET All India Rank (AIR) is '2191941', thereby exposing the score card copy fabricated by the petitioner as enclosed to her writ application as Annexure-5 & Annexure-9 to substantiate her false claims of securing 579 marks with AIR 6898."

Submission of the learned Sr. Advocate and learned instructing counsel on behalf of Opposite Party No.4 and discussions of the Court

39. Mr. Palit, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the OJEE along with Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel referred to paragraphs-9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 16 to the counter affidavit filed by Opposite Party No.4, which are reproduced herein :-

"9. That, it is humbly and most respectfully submitted that, the state rank 211 as mentioned in the present writ petition is also not against to this application No.2504108521562 which the petitioner is claiming as her application number. Actual OJEE State rank 211 has been assigned to application number 250410452757. The said application number has been assigned to Simpal Pattnaik, who has secured 565 Marks in NEET-UG 2025 and secured

All India Rank-6897 in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET).

10. That, it is humbly and most respectfully submitted that, OJEE never invited any candidates for counselling individually. OJEE informs the candidates by public notice in newspaper publication and its own websites by giving wide publication. Different OJEE notice gives information about detail schedule of counselling dates and other activities for counselling and admission process. Accordingly interested NEET UG 2025 qualified candidates are participating in the counselling process. National Testing Agency (NTA) has also well informed and advised to the aspirant candidate to remain in touch with website of the counselling authorities for updates. It is also responsibility of the aspirant candidates to be vigilant for counselling process conducted by the O.J.E.E. for taking part in the counselling and admission process of the State. The O.J.E.E. never individually call any candidates to appear on counselling. Hence, averment stated by the petitioner in the writ petition that the petitioner has been invited by the O.J.E.E. for counselling is factually incorrect. It is also incorrect that on 29-07-2025 document verification of the petitioner has been done by the present deponent. It is evident that as the petitioner has not registered in OJEE 2025 MBBS/BDS counselling process in 2025-26, therefore the statement of claiming as document verification is not correct.

11. That, it is humbly and most respectfully submitted that, the petitioner has visited to the OJEE office to know about her allotment status with her parent. The present deponent after verification of the rank card and basing on the date base shared by National Testing Agency (NTA), has been ascertained that the application number mentioned on the copy of the rank card brought by the petitioner i.e. application No.250410852162 is not correct and the said application has been assigned to Mane Kshitija Vitthal of Maharashtra. After verifying the database in the name of

candidate, with matching father's name, mother's name and DOB, it was ascertained that the Petitioner's application Number is 250410852174 and she has obtained total 0 marks out of 720 securing all India rank as 2191941.

13. That, it is humbly and most respectfully submitted that, A QR code is printed to each rank/score card of a candidate which is unique in nature. In the present case, The QR Code printed to the present score card attached in Annexure-5 (mentioned application No. 250410852162) of the present writ petition filed by the Petitioner is mismatching and downloading the score card having application no.- 250410852174. On the other hand, if the QR Code attached to the Annexure-10 filed by the Petitioner will scan it shows also same score card having application no: 250410852174 as Petitioner's actual application number. So, the application No.250410852174 is the actual application number assigned to the petitioner for NEET-UG 2025. It can also be concluded that the Rank/score card enclosed in the present petitioner at Annexure-5 has been manipulated in all the fields like application number percentile of scores secured, all India Rank etc, but not able to tamper the QR code.

14. That, it is humbly and most respectfully submitted that, the petitioner has a copy of OJEE published merit list which was manipulated. The petitioner was also asked to open her login id in OJEE counselling portal, as she was claiming to be a registered candidate having a State rank, then also she failed to do so. A registered candidate participated in OJEE counselling needs correct NEET-UG 2025 application number along with the password created by the candidate during the registration process. In the present case of the petitioner, she failed to login in OJEE portal as she has not been registered, hence not created a password.

16. That, it is humbly and most respectfully submitted that, the petitioner was also asked by the present deponent to produce the information slip of NEET application process. While the petitioner checked application confirmation page

on her E-mail the application number was 250410852174 and not 250410852162, the application number claimed by the Petitioner. The application number 250410852174 carries all the credential of the petitioner like her name, mother name, father name, date of birth etc. are matching to the data base supplied by National Testing Agency to the OJEE i.e. O.P. No.2."

40. We have also heard Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no.4-OJEE. He refers to Annexure-A/4 (though wrongly typed in the affidavit as Annexure-A/2) and referred to paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit to submit that the application number as has been stated by the petitioner to be her application number is not allotted to OJEE for counselling in the State of Odisha. The relied upon paragraph-8 of counter of Opposite Party No.4 is reproduced herein:

"8. That, it is humbly and most respectfully submitted that, no candidate has been registered in OJEE counselling registration process having application No.2504108521562 as mentioned in the petition. Furthermore, After 1st round registration process the OJEE merit list published for the eligible registered candidates indicating State Rank have not listed the registration number 2504108521562, as this number has not been registered by the Odisha Joint Entrance Examination in its registration process of admission to MBBS/BDS course in 2025-26 session. Therefore, the OJEE merit list annexed at Annexure-07 in the petition is not genuine one.

(Copy of the Merit List after 1st round registration process is annexed herewith as Annexure-A/2) "

41. Mr. Mishra then referred to internal page-13 of the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no.4, 10 th horizontal line from the bottom that indicates '211'. We have scanned and reproduced the same in the next page.

           (i)     'Application number' is different,
           (ii)    The 'Bar Code' is different at the top,