Want to be a
Soolegal Member
Lawstreet Journal

Supreme Court to hear the matter of discrepency in OMR scanning in NEET UG exam

Lawstreet Journal 10 Jan 2022 9:04pm

  •  Like
  •    0   Comment
  •     Share
  • 724

Image courtesy: Lawstreet Journal Judiciary Supreme Court to hear the matter of discrepency in OMR scanning in NEET UG exam

The bench of Justice Chandrachud and Justice Bopanna to hear the matter of discrepency in OMR scanning in NEET UG exam.

SC: They have filed an elaborate reply. They have the originals with the sign of the petitioner. There is no question of scanning different OMR sheets.

SC: We'll come back after lunch at 2 o'clock. All members of bar can also take a break.

Sr Adv Manoj Swarup: In Q1 he has ticked the second box, Q3 first box. Identical to 49 and 50.

SC: Why would the NTA want to doctor your results? They are saying we'll give you the original.

Swarup: Three things are implanted. They have an OMR sheet. There is a butter paper behind it.
Each cadidate will have to return both of them. The original signature are at the foot of the page only.
Prabhnoor Singh signs bottom left hand corner. I call their paper not genuine.

Swarup: They call my paper not genuine.
They themselves say before we declared result on 15/10.
On 13/10 entire database was transferred to Kotnik. If it's given to an outside agency, they are likely to tinker.
SC: How many candidates are there?
Swarup: 6

SC: Mr Rupesh, can we present the original OMR with their signature.

Adv Rupesh(NTA): Yes my lord.

Swarup: Take petitioner 5, Sakshi. Kindly see they say 57 is incorrect and 58 is correct, we say the reverse. If you juxtapose- half fold it, QR code of 57 and 58 I can't have.

Swarup: Kindly turn to 94 of the WP. This is attributed to petitioner 2. These are exact… Continue Reading...

0 like 0 Comments  Share 724

Tagged: NEET  
Disclaimer: SoOLEGAL in Media collaboration with Lawstreet Journal. SoOLEGAL take no responsbility for the content provided by Lawstreet Journal. For any discrepancies Contact Lawstreet Journal.
Did you find this write up useful? YES 0 NO 0