NEET UG 2021 Latest Update: The Kerala High Court on Friday heard a plea by a NEET (UG) candidate who sought retest of the Entrance examination saying her OMR answer sheet was likely to be rejected due to the dereliction of the Invigilator in the exam hall. However, the Kerala High Court has sought the response of the National Testing Agency in the matter. As per a report by LiveLaw, Justice PB Suresh Kumar will hear the matter in the upcoming week.Also Read - Why NEET UG Results 2021 Getting Delayed? Centre Expresses Concern, Says Ready With Results But….

The plea was filed by a student who moved the high court after being grieved by the alleged arbitrary manner in which the National eligibility Cum Entrance Test (UG) 2021 was conducted at her examination centre, Sree Narayana Public School, Poothotta. Also Read - NTA NEET-UG Result 2021 Date And Time: BIG Updates Students Must Know

The petitioner in her plea has stated that because of the invigilator, the candidates in the exam hall lost half an hour of time to complete the test, the total duration of which was 3 hours. Also Read - NEET PG 2021 Counselling Schedule Declared: Results Of First Round To Be Out On Nov 3

Appearing for the candidate, Advocate Santhosh Mathew said that the Admit Card issued to the candidates required them to present themselves at the examination centre by 11 AM for procedural formalities and verification, and to be seated in the examination hall by 12 PM.

The petition further stated in the plea that the candidates were to be issued with the test booklet including the answer sheets at 1:45 PM and the exam was scheduled to commence from 2 PM. However, the petitioner in the plea alleged that the candidates seated in examination hall were provided with the test booklet only at 2 PM.

Moreover, the candidates in the exam hall were not allowed to fill up their details by the invigilator due to some confusion regarding the booklets provided. After sometime, the test booklets were collected back and another set of booklets were distributed to the candidates in the room, including the petitioner.

The petitioner said the booklet she received later had carried the details of another candidate, and the relevant bubbles were already shaded. After informing the matter to the Invigilator, she was asked to strike off the details of the other candidate and to fill in her details over it.

The petitioner highlighted in the plea that the evaluation of the OMR sheet is done by computer software as specifically informed by the detailed instructions issued to the candidates regarding the procedure to be followed while filling the OMR Answer sheets.

She has alleged that the irregularities in the exam have made her quite anxious since she was very well aware of the sensitive nature of the software that evaluates the answer sheets, and was quite informed that any tampering could lead to rejection.

Because of the confusion created, the three hours test had to be completed by the petitioner and other candidates within two and a half hours and they contend that their answer sheet would be rejected by the NTA.

However, in this regard, the high court has sought response from the NTA and matter will be heard in the upcoming week.