Bhubaneswar/Allahabad: The Allahabad High Court on Thursday directed the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to revise marks awarded to all candidates who had appeared in the NEET exam this year.
It has asked CBSE to decide the merit list accordingly in view of incorrect reply for one of the 180 objective type questions provided in the answer key.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Tarun Agarwala and Justice Ashok Kumar passed the order while allowing a writ petition filed by a candidate. The petitioner had moved the court with the contention that he was 'dismayed to see that the official answer to question number 172 of test booklet Y was incorrect’ following which he provided a representation against the OMR grading.
Upon getting no response from the CBSE, the petitioner filed an RTI application which remained pending following which he filed the petition praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to take a decision on the challenge made by him and to award 5 marks for question number 172.
Allowing the petition, the court, however, remarked, "We find that question number 172 in test booklet code Y could not be answered correctly by any candidate. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in the larger interest of administration the benefit should be extended not only to the petitioner but to all the candidates."
Also Read : SC asks CBSE to set similar questions for NEET in regional languages
"The petitioner is entitled to be awarded 05 marks (04 marks for the question and 01 mark for negative marking). We also direct the CBSE to give appropriate marks to all the candidates in the like manner for question number 172 and corresponding question given in other booklets," the court added.
"Even though the petitioner had not claimed refund of the prescribed fee for challenging a key answer, since we find that the challenge made by the petitioner was correct we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to a refund of Rs 1000. We accordingly issue a mandamus commanding the CBSE to refund Rs 1000 to the petitioner at the earliest," the court ruled.