SC to hear pleas challenging results of NEET-UG today
Delhi HC issues notice to NTA to respond to four petitions ƒled by candidates; Vacation Bench refuses to stay counselling process; testing agency to ƒle a transfer petition to consolidate all pleas
he Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Thursday as many as three petitions, including the one led by the founder of edtech rm ‘Physics Wallah’, pertaining to the controversy-ridden National Eligibilitycum-Entrance Test for admission to MBBS, BDS and other medical courses.
The top court’s updated list of business say a Vacation Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta will take up the petitions.
Alakh Pandey, the founder of an edtech rm, has moved the court against alleged arbitrary award of grace marks by the National Testing Agency (NTA) to over 1,500 candidates.
The top court has also listed for hearing the two pleas led by Abdullah Mohammed Faiz and Jaripiti
TKartheek separately. Mr. Pandey has urged the court to set up an expert panel under its supervision to “enquire into the examination process and results”.
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the NTA to respond to four petitions led by NEET candidates.
A Vacation Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, following in the footsteps of the Supreme Court, refused to stay the counselling process. It listed the matter for further hearing on July 5.
Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta said several pleas had been led in seven High Courts relating to alleged irregularities in the conduct of the test, and some were pending before the Supreme Court. He said the NTA would soon le a transfer petition in the Supreme Court for consolidating all the pleas. “We are ling transfer petitions in the Supreme Court because there is a likelihood of confiicting views by different High Courts. Could your lordship consider waiting for a week or two? We will le a transfer petition,” Mr. Mehta said.
‘Inconsistency’ agged
One of the petitions, led through advocate Abiha Zaidi, specically challenged the “inconsistency between the instructions given in the question booklet and the answer key published”. “The petitioner [Mohammed Florez] faced an issue with the answer key provided for Question No. 14 in Test Booklet Code Q4. This question ambiguously suggested two correct answers contrary to the instructions, adversely impacting the petitioner’s score,” the plea said.
(With PTI inputs)