Live
- Bhupalapally: 22 selected for kabaddi tournament
- Safiya awarded PhD
- School for brick kiln workers’ children opens
- ISRO: A digital bridge and global diplomatic force
- Devanahalli toll plaza collects `308 cr in a single year
- Indiramma house survey conducted
- Alphores Narender Reddy donates Rs 1 lakh to library
- Provide all facilities at Group-2 exam centres: Collector Venkatesh Dhotre
- Kadiyam Kavya seeks coach factory at Kazipet
- Gold rates in Hyderabad today slashes, check the rates on 14 December, 2024
17-year-old moves Delhi HC in NEET (UG) answer key discrepancy issue
A 17-year-old student has approached the Delhi High Court, challenging the National Testing Agency (NTA) over alleged inconsistencies in the NEET (UG) 2024 examination.
New Delhi: A 17-year-old student has approached the Delhi High Court, challenging the National Testing Agency (NTA) over alleged inconsistencies in the NEET (UG) 2024 examination.
The petition, filed by the student's mother on her behalf, contests the accuracy of the answer key for the exam conducted on May 5.
The issue revolves around Question No. 29 in Test Booklet Code R5, where the final answer key, released on June 3, reportedly listed two correct answers. This contradicts the instructions given in the examination booklet, which clearly stated that only one option could be correct for each multiple-choice question in Section A.
The petition highlights that the provisional answer key was published by the NTA on May 30 with a window for students to raise objections until May 31. Despite this, the final answer key considered both options 2 and 4 as correct for the disputed question. This discrepancy has significant implications for the examinees, it stressed.
The petitioner argues that the NTA's decision to award marks to students who selected either of the two options unfairly benefits those who guessed or inadvertently marked one of the correct answers. This, the petition claims, discriminates against candidates who followed the instructions and refrained from marking an answer due to the ambiguity.
The petitioner further contends that this inconsistency has resulted in arbitrary and unfair grace marks, adversely affecting the ranks of students who did not benefit from this decision. According to the petition, such arbitrary awarding of marks can cause a rank difference of approximately 20,000 places, potentially impacting the future prospects of many candidates.
Given these grievances, the petitioner has filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking the high court's intervention to address the alleged violations and ensure a fair resolution for all affected candidates.
The petitioner seeks a reassessment of the disputed question and a revision of the results to ensure equity and fairness in the examination process.
The high court has sought NTA’s stand on the matter.
