Read on the application
The Delhi High Court expressed shock and fined a candidate appearing for the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test Undergraduate (NEET UG) 2023 Rs. 20,000 was fined. The court made it clear that such an attempt cannot be tolerated in the eyes of the court. Justice Purushendra Kumar Kaurav said that he intended to impose a fine of Rs 2 lakh on the petitioner woman and refer the matter to the police, but was not doing so due to her young age.
The High Court said it was surprised by the attitude of the petitioner who said that the ‘Optical Mark Recognition’ (OMR) sheet provided by him was genuine while the sheet shown in court by the National Testing Agency (NTA) was not genuine. . The court said that there was no reason to believe that the NTA would alter or tamper with the marks obtained by the candidate as it had no vested interest in it.
The girl giving the exam reached the court and made these demands
The high court’s judgment came on a petition by a medical aspirant from Andhra Pradesh seeking a direction to the NTA to provide him with his original OMR sheet along with the answer key of the exam, recalculate his marks and issue a fresh result and merit list. was requested. The petitioner also sought a direction to allot MBBS seats to him for NEET (UG)-2023 academic year in any Government Medical College in Kerala or Andhra Pradesh.
NEET: 4 NEET pass students caught cheating in MBBS, BDS admissions, barred from admission process
‘My rank in NEET reduced from 351 to 1253032’
According to the application, the NTA declared the result on June 13 and the applicant’s Counseling All India Rank was shown as 351. He has secured 697 marks out of 720. He claimed that later his marks went up to 103 and his rank went up to 1253032.
Student’s name was not in merit list: NTA
However, the NTA claimed that the OMR sheet shown by the applicant was tampered with. The counsel for NTA also showed the original OMR sheet of the petitioner to the court. The counsel for NTA also told the court that the petitioner’s name was not in the merit list but the petitioner claimed that his name was earlier in the merit list but was deleted later.
During the hearing, the court said, “Such an attitude is unacceptable and shocks the conscience of the court.” After comparing both the OMR sheets, the High Court observed, “It is noticeable that there is a deliberate attempt to manipulate the OMR sheet cited by the petitioner on behalf of the petitioner. The Court has absolutely no tolerance for cowardice. Law.”