Ku. Shrishti Shantibodh Mishra vs The Union Of India & Ors.

The student, who was aspiring for admission to M.B.B.S. Course, has approached this Court through her natural guardian-mother, on the ground that score card dated 16.7.2026, issued by respondent no.2, awarding her only 160 marks out of 720 of OMR Answer Sheet of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test, is arbitrary, unreasonable and not founded upon an evaluation of responses actually marked by the petitioner. Accordingly, various prayers including setting aside of Score Card, production of Original OMR Answer Sheet, verification and re-tallying the responses recorded in petitioner's physical OMR and other consequential reliefs were made.

In this background, we are reminded of the Subhashit:

Practical meaning of which would be “one should not act hastily, for thoughtlessness is the root of great calamities. Prosperity, attracted by good qualities, willingly chooses the person who acts after careful reflection”.

We have heard the learned respective counsels on different dates. During pendency of the petition, the respondent authorities, in order to show their fairness, have permitted the petitioner to remain present for inspection of Original OMR Sheet.

Additional affidavit dated 7.8.2026 was filed by the petitioner before this Court specifically stating that she is ready and willing to remain present for inspection of Original OMR Sheet on any date and time, as may be appointed by the respondents, for verifying Physical Original OMR Sheet. Paragraph 4 of the affidavit is worth noting:

Thus, throughout the pendency of the proceedings, petitioner was confident that marks which were allotted to her i.e. 160 out of 720 were incorrect and as per her assessment upon tallying her response with the answer key, she had expected approximately 680 marks out of 720.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, upon instructions from the petitioner has stated that the petitioner had inspected the Original OMR Sheet and found that Scorecard dated 16.7.2026, issued by respondent no. 2, awarding petitioner 160 marks out of 720 on the basis of OMR Answer Sheet, was correct.

Since, there is no dispute which now remains, we are not dealing with the facts of the case at length. Suffice it to say that the contention of the petitioner was found totally incorrect.

Mr. Shukul, the learned DSGI for respondents, has contended that the stand taken by the petitioner was without any foundation and the allegations made that respondent no. 2 owes a non-delegable public duty to correctly record, scan and evaluate the responses of every candidate and the abdication of said duty, in case of petitioner, vitiates the impugned result, are now found unsustainable. He, therefore, submits that considering the nature of pleadings made without any substantial reason tarnishes the image of the respondents including National Testing Agency. He has further contended that filing of affidavit dated 7.8.2026 that petitioner is agreeable to face such action as may be permissible in law, clearly shows that petitioner was put to notice that in case, her version is found to be incorrect, the consequences would follow.

In this background, we would like to state that we would have dispose of the petition recording her satisfaction that score card dated 16.7.2026 shows the correct awarding of marks but what troubled us is the stand taken by the petitioner that the respondents have not ‘discharged their duties properly, demonstrates non-application of mind,’ without there being any substance. We do not say that there cannot be genuine cases but fact remains, that in the present case, all throughout, the petitioner has taken a stand that the Scorecard was incorrect and it is only after physical inspection, she realized that her version was incorrect. The conduct of the petitioner in the aforesaid background is totally blameworthy. Not only this, the matter was listed on various occasions and the petitioner all through out had taken a stand that she was given less marks. Her repeated insistence for physical verification of answer sheet, despite knowing that she had not solved the questions properly, has also created difficult situation for the respondents since they were required to set machinery in motion with swiftness. We would have imposed costs of Rs. 50,000/- on the petitioner but considering the fact that student’s interest is involved, we are imposing costs of Rs. 25,000/-.

Thus, considering the principles that costs should ordinarily follow the event, so also, it should be proportionate to the conduct of party, we dismiss the petition with costs of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), to be deposited by the natural guardian mother of petitioner, within four weeks from today, in ‘Public Welfare Account’ bearing No. 129712010001014, IFSC Code No. UBIN0812978 with Union Bank of India, High Court Branch, Civil Lines, Nagpur.