The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for rationalisation of marks in the results of two separate examinations, held as NEET-I and II on May 1 and July 24, respectively, in view of the different difficulty levels of question papers.
A bench of Justices Anil R Dave and L Nageswara Rao said this will open a Pandora's box, and some aspirants might be from the successful candidates' list of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Examination (NEET), which paves the way for admission to all private and other medical colleges across the country.
"We can't help out at this stage. What you are saying is correct, but there would be lot of problems for the candidates. We agree that two examinations can't be the same," the bench told the counsel for the petitioner, medical aspirant Shivangi Singh, who figured in the list of successful candidates in the combined result declared on August 16.
The petitioner, a resident of Bihar, sought direction to cancel the combined result as it was published without carrying out the equalisation of marks.
"What you are saying might be right, but we can't do it at this stage. In order to avoid complications, we dismiss your petition," the bench said, expressing hope that the CBSE might do it in future examinations.
The petitioner had contended that the declaration of the combined result without normalising the marks obtained by candidates in NEET-I and II was "illegal and unconstitutional and violative of their fundamental rights under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution".
The petition said that treating NEET-I and II as one single exam for determining the rank of candidates without applying the "normalisation" formula amounted to placing NEET-I candidates higher in the all India ranking vis-a-vis candidates from NEET-II with poor scores due to the difference in difficulty levels.
![]( "The petitioner, a resident of Bihar, sought direction to cancel the combined result as it was published without carrying out the equalisation of marks. pti file photo")
The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for rationalisation of marks in the results of two separate examinations, held as NEET-I and II on May 1 and July 24, respectively, in view of the different difficulty levels of question papers.
A bench of Justices Anil R Dave and L Nageswara Rao said this will open a Pandora’s box, and some aspirants might be from the successful candidates’ list of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Examination (NEET), which paves the way for admission to all private and other medical colleges across the country.
"We can’t help out at this stage. What you are saying is correct, but there would be lot of problems for the candidates. We agree that two examinations can’t be the same,” the bench told the counsel for the petitioner, medical aspirant Shivangi Singh, who figured in the list of successful candidates in the combined result declared on August 16.
The petitioner, a resident of Bihar, sought direction to cancel the combined result as it was published without carrying out the equalisation of marks.
"What you are saying might be right, but we can’t do it at this stage. In order to avoid complications, we dismiss your petition,” the bench said, expressing hope that the CBSE might do it in future examinations.
The petitioner had contended that the declaration of the combined result without normalising the marks obtained by candidates in NEET-I and II was "illegal and unconstitutional and violative of their fundamental rights under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution”.
The petition said that treating NEET-I and II as one single exam for determining the rank of candidates without applying the "normalisation” formula amounted to placing NEET-I candidates higher in the all India ranking vis-a-vis candidates from NEET-II with poor scores due to the difference in difficulty levels.
A bench of Justices Anil R Dave and L Nageswara Rao said this will open a Pandora's box, and some aspirants might be from the successful candidates' list of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Examination (NEET), which paves the way for admission to all private and other medical colleges across the country.
"We can't help out at this stage. What you are saying is correct, but there would be lot of problems for the candidates. We agree that two examinations can't be the same," the bench told the counsel for the petitioner, medical aspirant Shivangi Singh, who figured in the list of successful candidates in the combined result declared on August 16.
The petitioner, a resident of Bihar, sought direction to cancel the combined result as it was published without carrying out the equalisation of marks.
"What you are saying might be right, but we can't do it at this stage. In order to avoid complications, we dismiss your petition," the bench said, expressing hope that the CBSE might do it in future examinations.
The petitioner had contended that the declaration of the combined result without normalising the marks obtained by candidates in NEET-I and II was "illegal and unconstitutional and violative of their fundamental rights under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution".
The petition said that treating NEET-I and II as one single exam for determining the rank of candidates without applying the "normalisation" formula amounted to placing NEET-I candidates higher in the all India ranking vis-a-vis candidates from NEET-II with poor scores due to the difference in difficulty levels.
The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for rationalisation of marks in the results of two separate examinations, held as NEET-I and II on May 1 and July 24, respectively, in view of the different difficulty levels of question papers. A bench of Justices Anil R Dave and L Nageswara Rao said this will open a Pandora’s box, and some aspirants might be from the successful candidates’ list of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Examination (NEET), which paves the way for admission to all private and other medical colleges across the country.
"We can’t help out at this stage. What you are saying is correct, but there would be lot of problems for the candidates. We agree that two examinations can’t be the same,” the bench told the counsel for the petitioner, medical aspirant Shivangi Singh, who figured in the list of successful candidates in the combined result declared on August 16.
The petitioner, a resident of Bihar, sought direction to cancel the combined result as it was published without carrying out the equalisation of marks.
"What you are saying might be right, but we can’t do it at this stage. In order to avoid complications, we dismiss your petition,” the bench said, expressing hope that the CBSE might do it in future examinations.
The petitioner had contended that the declaration of the combined result without normalising the marks obtained by candidates in NEET-I and II was "illegal and unconstitutional and violative of their fundamental rights under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution”.
The petition said that treating NEET-I and II as one single exam for determining the rank of candidates without applying the "normalisation” formula amounted to placing NEET-I candidates higher in the all India ranking vis-a-vis candidates from NEET-II with poor scores due to the difference in difficulty levels.