Introduction
The National Testing Agency (NTA) recently decided to withdraw the 'grace marks' awarded to 1,563 NEET candidates and will conduct a retest for these students. This decision comes amid widespread criticism and legal challenges regarding the fairness of awarding grace marks.
This article delves into the reasons behind the initial award of grace marks, the subsequent withdrawal, the high-powered committee's recommendations, and the future implications for the NEET examination process.
Background of the Grace Marks Award
Initial Award of Grace Marks: On May 5, during the NEET UG exam, several candidates faced delays at select centers, leading to lost exam time. These centers included two in Chhattisgarh and one each in Meghalaya, Surat, Haryana’s Bahadurgarh, and Chandigarh. Following the exam, many candidates filed writ petitions in the High Courts of Punjab & Haryana, Delhi, and Chhattisgarh, alleging insufficient time to complete the exam due to these delays.
Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) Findings: The NTA established a Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) to investigate these complaints. The GRC found merit in the grievances and recommended compensating the affected candidates for the lost time. The committee suggested using the same normalization formula approved by the Supreme Court for the CLAT examination in 2018, which led to the awarding of grace marks to 1,563 candidates.
Controversy and Legal Challenges: The decision to award grace marks sparked controversy. Six of the candidates who received grace marks scored a perfect 720/720, making them NEET-UG All-India toppers. This outcome led to several stakeholders, including students and educational bodies, approaching the NTA and the Supreme Court, arguing that this was an unfair resolution.
Formation and Recommendations of the High-Powered Committee (HPC)
HPC Composition: On June 8, the Ministry of Education (MoE) and the NTA formed a High-Powered Committee (HPC) to review the results of the 1,563 candidates. The committee included four senior experts: NTA Chairman Prof. Pradeep Kumar Joshi, Prof. T C A Anant, Prof. C B Sharma, and Dr. (Prof.) B Srinivas.
HPC's Review and Recommendations: The HPC held meetings on June 10, 11, and 12. After reviewing the situation, the committee recommended canceling and withdrawing the normalized scores of all 1,563 candidates. The HPC suggested that the affected students be informed of their actual scores (without grace marks) and given the option to retake the exam on June 23. Those who opt for the retest would have their previous scores invalidated.
Rationale Behind HPC’s Decision: The HPC found that the GRC did not fully consider certain critical aspects while adopting the CLAT 2018 normalization formula:
OMR-Based Exams vs. Computer-Based Tests: Unlike computer-based tests, OMR-based exams like NEET-UG lack an automated system for precise time assessment. The time lost was estimated based on reports from exam invigilators, staff, observers, and CCTV footage, which the HPC felt did not provide a consistent basis for determining time lost across different centers.
Unattempted Questions Compensation: The GRC's formula did not account for the fact that compensation should only be provided for unattempted questions. This led to some candidates receiving disproportionately high scores.
The HPC concluded that the fairest solution was to conduct a retest for the 1,563 candidates.
Implementation of the Retest
Details of the Retest: The NTA will conduct the retest on June 23 for the 1,563 candidates affected. Any other student for whom re-examination directions have been or will be passed by the courts in individual cases will also be included. The exam will be conducted in the same six cities but at different centers.
Communication and Logistics: Affected students will be notified via their registered email addresses, and new admit cards will be issued. The results for the retest will be announced on or before June 30.
Future Implications and NTA’s Plan
Improving Examination Process: The NTA plans to start the registration process for NEET-UG earlier next year to ensure better planning and selection of test centers. This year, the process began a month ago, but moving forward, it will start much sooner to provide a buffer time.
Enhanced Training for Invigilators: The NTA will place more emphasis on the training of invigilators and examination officers to prevent delays and ensure smooth conduct of exams. Despite annual training sessions, the recent issues highlighted the need for more rigorous preparation.
Conclusion
The decision to withdraw grace marks and conduct a retest for 1,563 NEET candidates reflects the NTA's commitment to fairness and integrity in the examination process
While the initial awarding of grace marks aimed to address genuine grievances, the resulting controversy and legal challenges necessitated a thorough review and corrective action.
Moving forward, the NTA's steps to improve planning and training underscore their dedication to ensuring a fair and efficient examination process for all candidates.
Comments