13 September 2024 Education >> Miscellaneous  

In a recent ruling of Talluri Srikar (Minor) Through His Father Talluri Srikrishna v/s The Director, National Testing Agency & Others, the Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by a candidate seeking a re-examination of the NEET (UG) 2024, citing personal difficulties faced during the test due to a medical condition. The petitioner, who suffers from hyperhidrosis—a condition causing excessive sweating of the palms and soles—argued that his performance was significantly hindered by the inability to bring a handkerchief into the examination hall, which he needed to manage his sweating.

The petitioner initially approached the High Court of Telangana, requesting that the examination be conducted again for him, similar to a re-examination held for 1,563 other candidates who experienced issues with the distribution of the correct question paper. However, the High Court found no merit in his claims, noting that all candidates, including the petitioner, were given the full allotted time for the exam. The court further asserted that even if the petitioner had been denied the handkerchief, it would not have materially impacted his performance, as he could have wiped his palms on his clothes.

During the proceedings, the petitioner’s father, alongside the petitioner himself, expressed concerns regarding the negligence of security personnel who did not allow the handkerchief, despite it not being a prohibited item. They argued that having the handkerchief would have likely improved the petitioner’s performance and enhanced his chances of securing admission into a preferred college.

However, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing several key points. Firstly, it highlighted that the petitioner was allotted the full time for the examination, distinguishing his case from that of the other candidates who faced delays. Secondly, the court noted that the mechanics of the exam, which involved darkening circles on an OMR sheet, would not have been significantly affected by the absence of a handkerchief. Lastly, the Supreme Court stressed the importance of not allowing individual grievances in public examinations to delay results, which could have broader implications for public interest. In conclusion, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, thus resolving the matter in favor of maintaining the integrity of the examination process. Any pending applications related to this case have also been disposed of.