Case Note & Summary
By way of a writ petition, a minor student aspiring for admission to the M.B.B.S. course approached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, through her natural guardian-mother, challenging the NEET scorecard dated 16.7.2026 issued by the National Testing Agency (respondent no.2). The scorecard awarded her 160 marks out of 720 in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test. The petitioner alleged that the valuation was arbitrary, unreasonable, and not based on the responses actually marked on the OMR answer sheet. She sought setting aside of the scorecard, production of the original OMR sheet, and verification and re-tallying of the responses, along with other consequential reliefs. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent authorities permitted the petitioner to inspect the original OMR sheet. The petitioner filed an additional affidavit dated 7.8.2026 stating that she was ready and willing to appear for inspection and that she understood the consequences flowing from the affidavit. Throughout the proceedings, she asserted that she expected approximately 680 marks out of 720 based on her own tallying. After inspecting the original OMR sheet, her counsel informed the court that she found the scorecard awarding 160 out of 720 to be correct. There was no remaining dispute. The court observed that the petitioner's contention was totally incorrect. The respondents argued that the petitioner's stand lacked any foundation and that the allegations of abdication of public duty and non-application of mind against the National Testing Agency were unsustainable and tarnished its image. The court noted that it would have disposed of the petition merely recording the satisfaction that the scorecard was correct, but it was troubled by the petitioner's persistent unsubstantiated allegations that the respondents had not discharged their duties properly. The court found the petitioner's conduct blameworthy because she repeatedly insisted on physical verification despite knowing she had not solved the questions properly, causing the respondents to set machinery in motion. Though the court considered imposing costs of Rs. 50,000, it reduced the amount to Rs. 25,000 in view of the student's interest. Applying the principles that costs should ordinarily follow the event and be proportionate to the conduct of the party, the court dismissed the petition with costs of Rs. 25,000, to be deposited by the natural guardian mother within four weeks in the specified Public Welfare Account. The judgment was delivered by the Division Bench of Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Rajnish R. Vyas on 24.08.2026.
Headnote
A) Education Law - Medical Entrance Examination - Verification of OMR Answer Sheet and Scorecard - National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) - No specific statutory provision cited - Student challenged NEET scorecard of 160 out of 720 as arbitrary and sought production and re-tallying of the original OMR sheet; after being permitted by respondents to inspect the original OMR sheet, the student conceded that the scorecard was correct; the court found her earlier contention totally incorrect and upheld the scorecard - Held that the petition was devoid of merit and was dismissed with costs (Paras 1-6, 9). B) Costs - Public Law Litigation - Costs Follow Event and Must Be Proportionate to Conduct - No specific statutory provision cited; general principles of costs - Petitioner's conduct was found blameworthy because she repeatedly insisted on physical verification of the answer sheet despite knowing she had not solved questions properly, causing respondents to set machinery in motion; court would have imposed Rs. 50,000 but reduced to Rs. 25,000 considering student's interest - Held that costs should ordinarily follow the event and be proportionate to the party's conduct (Paras 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the NEET scorecard dated 16.7.2026 issued by the National Testing Agency was arbitrary and liable to be set aside; whether the petitioner was entitled to production and verification of the original OMR answer sheet and re-tallying of responses; and whether costs should be imposed for making unsubstantiated allegations against the respondent authorities.
Final Decision
Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000, to be deposited by the natural guardian mother of the petitioner within four weeks in Public Welfare Account No. 129712010001014, IFSC Code No. UBIN0812978 with Union Bank of India, High Court Branch, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
Law Points
- costs should ordinarily follow the event
- costs proportionate to party's conduct
- unsubstantiated allegations against public authorities tarnish image
- physical inspection of OMR sheet is conclusive on score correctness
- public duty challenge requires factual foundation
- minor's guardian liable for costs
