NEET marks disparity: HC to decide on probe on Jan 21

NEET marks disparity: HC to decide on probe on Jan 21

NTA Says No Discrepancy In Marks

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

Chennai:14.01.2021

Amid allegations of marksheet manipulation in NEET against National Testing Agency (NTA), Madras highcourtsaiditwilltake a call on ordering probe by an independent agency on January 21.

Justice B Pugalendhi passed the interim order on the plea moved by K S Manoj, an MBBS aspirant from Coimbatore, alleging that his marksheet had been manipulated by NTA and that he was denied admission to medical course.

According to Manoj, when he downloaded his answer sheet first on October 15, the mark shown against his name was 594, whereas, on October 17 it was modified to 248 marks.

Justice Pugalendhi, taking note of the allegation and allowing the student to join the Tuticorin Medical College where he had been allotted a seat, however, said: "It is made clear that if an investigation is ordered and the investigation reveals any manipulation committed by the petitioner, not only the petitioner, but his parentswill alsobeheld responsible and have to face the legal consequences."

Noting that the admission is subject to the outcome of the plea, the judge said: “It is needless to state that the petitioner can neither take any advantage on the admission obtained in the college, which was made pursuant to the order of this court, nor can claim any refund of the fee paid at the time of admission.”

The petitioner will also be liable to pay the discontinued fee, the court added.

Opposing the plea, NTA had arguedthatscreenshots relied on by the petitioner showing more marks are fabricated and that there was only one OMR sheet, which would expose that petitioner had got 248 marks and not more than that.

Denying the same, the petitioner asserted that he had not tampered any document as claimed, and sought investigation by any agency.

The petitioner, an MBBS aspirant from Coimbatore, claimed that when he downloaded his answer sheet on October 15, the mark shown against his name was 594, whereas on October 17, it was 248