Petitioners allege lack of surveillance, complete systematic failure in exam

admin

Petitioners allege lack of surveillance, complete systematic failure in exam



NEW DELHI: The petitioners told the Supreme Court on Monday that the NEET-UG exam was held, without following any procedures and was “a complete systemic failure,” with “no address verification and no CCTV camera monitoring” at any of the locations.”In this exam, there was a complete systemic failure. No address verification.. there was no CCTV camera monitoring at any of the locations.. there has been a live monitoring they say.. but I demolish it by saying that a wrong question paper was distributed in Sawai Madhopur and there was no surveillance.. it was on social media they got to know about the wrong question paper.” senior lawyer Narendra Hooda, appearing for the petitioners told the three-judge bench, led by the Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud.Hooda told the Supreme Court that the investigation by Bihar police have found that the leak happened on May 4, prior to the deposit of question papers in the respective banks.”The statements of the accused indicate that the students gathered to memorize the question paper on the evening of May 4 and that means leak happened before May 4,” the apex court said.Hooda further argued that the manner of conducting the entire exam was brittle that it did not inspire confidence and that at every stage there was a possibility of leak. “They admit that there was a leak, they admitted that dissemination happened on WhatsApp,” he said. Hooda also pointed out that while the NTA published centre wise results of the exam, complying with the court’s direction, all India ranks were not given. Exam centre wise seriatim was also not published, he noted. Supreme Court is hearing a batch of petitions by students who have appeared in the National eligibility cum entrance test (NEET UG) and have sought re-test and proper investigation into the alleged paper leak.The hearing is underway as other petitioners are arguing in the top court.



Source link