Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan rejected a plea by a NEET-UG 2025 candidate seeking recalculation of his OMR evaluation and revision of his result and rank. The Court stated that there was no discrimination or arbitrariness in the process adopted by the National Testing Agency (NTA) for checking the OMR sheets. It noted that the candidate had not properly darkened four answer circles as required by examination instructions, and therefore the scanner treated them as unanswered. Referring to the NEET 2025 Information Bulletin barring re-evaluation, the Court declined to alter the existing machine-gradable assessment or merit list

The petitioner, Abid Khan, appeared in the NEET (UG) 2025 examination conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA). He secured a 92.5368 percentile. Following publication of the OMR sheets and recorded responses, Khan claimed that his answers to questions 137 through 141 were correctly marked but had not been evaluated. He filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking two primary reliefs: first, issuance of a writ directing NTA to recalculate his marks after awarding credit for five disputed questions, and second, reservation of one seat for him in a government medical college in Himachal Pradesh under the Scheduled Tribe category pending adjudication

Also Read: Delhi High Court | Bail Denied in 2015 Custodial Killing Case as Court Clarifies Release Under Section 436A CrPC Is Not Automatic Even for Offences Without Death Penalty

The petitioner  submitted that the OMR sheet clearly showed the petitioner had marked the correct responses. It was argued that the computerized evaluation failed to recognize visible markings due to technical issues. The petitioner relied on his representation made pursuant to a public notice dated 03.06.2025, which allowed candidates to challenge recorded responses and answer keys. Despite submitting objections with the requisite fee, the petitioner claimed he received no response from NTA

In its counter-affidavit, the NTA contended that marks had already been awarded for question 138. However, for questions 137, 139, 140, and 141, the petitioner failed to darken the circles fully, instead leaving spot marks. The OMR scanner, being automated, treated those answers as unanswered. The respondents stated that instructions accompanying the OMR sheets explicitly directed candidates to darken circles completely and warned against stray or spot marks

The respondents collectively argued that any deviation from instructions could not warrant judicial intervention, as it would compromise the uniformity and transparency of the evaluation process

Justice Mahajan recorded that the petitioner had been “specifically and clearly informed about the instructions in respect of the filling of the OMR Sheet.” The Court observed that the petitioner was aware that failing to fully darken the circle would result in the scanner not recognizing the response. Referring to the disputed OMR entries, the judgment noted: “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 he was not awarded marks for the same.”

The Court further observed that the manner in which the petitioner marked the disputed questions suggested indecision. “The manner in which circles of aforesaid questions have been darkened, gives an impression that the petitioner was not sure about the correct answer.” It was reiterated that the OMR sheets of all candidates were uniformly evaluated by scanners without human interference, ensuring equal treatment for every candidate

Stating the binding nature of the examination bulletin, the Court quoted Clause 13.4 of the NEET (UG) 2025 Information Bulletin: “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.”

Also Read: S. 37 Provincial Insolvency Act | Supreme Court Restores District Court Order in Partnership Dispute | Clarifies Only Valid Transactions During Insolvency Remain Protected After Annulment

Citing precedent, the Court recorded: “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.” Reference was made to Sadhana Yadav vs. Union of India & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3965

Justice Mahajan held: “In view of the above discussion, the prayer of the petitioner for recalculation and OMR evaluation for aforesaid four questions cannot be granted. Therefore, there is no merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Ms. Sumitra Choudhary, Mr. Raghav Raman, Ms. Nitya Sharma, Ms. Jasmine Sheikh, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Khanna, Standing Counsel for NTA with Ms. Pragya Bhushan, Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Ms. Vilakshana Dayma, Ms. Mukta Singh, Advocates; Mr. Raj Kumar, Central Government Standing Counsel for Union of India

Case Title: Abid Khan v. National Testing Agency & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:8768
Case Number: W.P.(C) 12858/2025
Bench: Justice Vikas Mahajan