Supriya Devi v. Union of India Th. Secretary, Ministry of Education, New Delhi and Another

ORDER

05.08.2026

¶1Through the medium of instant Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- a. Writ of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to verify the discrepancy between the two scorecards downloaded from the official website and to issue the correct scorecard if any error is found/rectified in the evaluation or data processing of NEET (UG)-2026 within a time bound manner. b. Commanding and directing the respondents to produce certified copy of the Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) sheet of the petitioner alongwith evaluation details and all relevant records pertaining to NEET (UG)-2026 before this Hon'ble Court for judicial scrutiny. c. Commanding and directing the respondents to recalculate the petitioner's marks strictly in accordance with the official answer key. d. Commanding and directing the respondents to protect the petitioner's candidature and not to deny her participation in counselling on account of the disputed result during the pendency of the present petition. e. Commanding and directing the respondent No.2 to decide the representation/email of the petitioner dated 22nd July, 2026 by making necessary corrections/rectification in the Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) sheet of the petitioner within some time frame.

Sr. No. 135

WP( C) No.2329/2026

¶2The case projected by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that she appeared in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (UG)-2026 [NEET (UG)-2026] re-examination conducted by respondent No. 2 for admission to undergraduate medical courses under Application No. 260411074395 (Roll No. 2501111212), after the original examination was cancelled nationwide on account of allegations of paper leak and other irregularities.

¶3It is also stated in the petition that after the declaration of the NEET

(UG)-2026 result, the petitioner downloaded her scorecard from the official website of the National Testing Agency on 19.07.2026 at about 14:59:30 hours. The scorecard reflected that she had secured 651 marks. Subsequently, the petitioner again downloaded the scorecard from the same official website using the same login credentials on 19.07.2026 at about 03:19:18 hours. To her utter shock and surprise, the score displayed therein had changed to 251 marks. The unexplained difference of 400 marks between the two scorecards generated from the official website is wholly arbitrary and indicative of a serious technical or data-related error attributable to the respondents. The petitioner further verified her responses with the official answer key published by the National Testing Agency and calculated her expected score to be approximately 650 marks, which substantially corresponds with the first scorecard reflecting 651 marks. The sudden and substantial reduction of 400 marks has caused the petitioner immense stress and uncertainty. The petitioner also addressed an email dated 22.07.2026 to respondent No. 2 requesting supply of her OMR response sheet to enable independent

WP( C) No.2329/2026 verification of the evaluation. However, no action has been taken on the said request till date.

¶4Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶5After addressing arguments for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the writ petition as a representation and decide the same within a stipulated time frame by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents raises no objection to the Court, if the petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶6In view of the statements so made, the present writ petition is taken up for final disposal and is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the writ petition as a representation and consider the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order at the earliest, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, but well before the counselling process is initiated. Pending application(s), if any, including the connected CM, also stand disposed of.

( Sanjay Parihar ) Judge Jammu

05.08.2026 Narinder

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case No:- WP(C) No. 2329/2026 CM No.5037/2026 Supriya Devi …. Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Mohinder Kumar, Advocate Vs Union of India and Anr. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Karan Sharma, CGSC. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE