Waiting for an individual email did not excuse a NEET candidate from checking the OMR sheets that the National Testing Agency had placed online during the notified objection window, the Calcutta High Court held.
Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Anuj Singh dismissed Shaonkali Maji’s intra-court appeal against the 31 July 2026 rejection of her writ petition.
“The writ petitioner has been rather casual in pursuing her career. She was negligent in not visiting the NTA website between 13th and 15th July, 2026.”
— Para 9
Why it matters. For mass examinations, a candidate’s procedural opportunity may lie in the common online portal rather than the timing of a personal communication. Once the agency publishes the response material and announces a challenge period, a candidate who does not use that channel may lose the chance to obtain writ relief.
A missed online window
Maji had taken NEET (UG) 2026 and was shown as scoring 146 marks. The objection window ran from 13 July until 11 a.m. on 15 July 2026. She said NTA emailed an OMR sheet at about 10:30 p.m. on 15 July, after the window had closed.
The next morning, she complained that the sheet was not hers. According to her case, questions she had left blank appeared answered and some selected responses had been altered.
The Division Bench did not decide those factual allegations by comparing handwriting, response data or examination records. It instead focused on the opportunity already announced: NTA had told candidates that their OMR sheets would be available on its website from 13 to 15 July. Maji admitted she did not visit the site during that period and waited for email.
The court also noted the administrative scale of an examination involving about 20 lakh candidates. NTA remained responsible for transparency and seamless conduct, but that responsibility did not remove a candidate’s obligation to follow the notified website process.
The judgment
The Bench held that Maji could not rely on the late email to say she had been denied a chance to object when she had not opened the online material during the designated window. It upheld the Single Judge, dismissed M.A.T. 1332 of 2026 and CAN 1 of 2026, and made no order for costs.
The Bench did not decide whether the disputed OMR sheet was authentic. Its decision rests on the appellant’s failure to use the notified challenge window.
“While it is true that NTA is entrusted with the responsibility of conducting NEET examination and to ensure complete transparency and seamlessness, one must also factor in the volume of the work entrusted to the NTA.”
— Para 6
“In the light of the above, this Court finds that the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the writ petition was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge.”
— Para 10
U. S. Menon and Abhirup Chakraborty for respondent Nos. 3 to 5;
Anil Kumar Gupta and Madan Mohan Ray for the Union of India.