ORDER : Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1. Heard Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Anmol Sharma, learned Central Government Counsel for respondent No.1, Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondents No.3 & 4 as well as Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, Standing Counsel for respondent No.5 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 to re-evaluate the OMR sheet and allot the correct marks for question no. 141 as per answer key dated 31.05.2024. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the incorrect evaluation of Question no. 141 carried out by Respondent no.2. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as deemed necessary as deem fit.” 3. Brief facts of the present case, are that, this is the second round of Litigation. Earlier, the petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing WPC No.3015/2024 with a grievance that the petitioner has attempted 180 questions, out of which, the petitioner has wronged only three questions, but marks for one question which has been rightly answered has not been granted. When WPC N?.3015/2024 came up for hearing on 21.06.2024, the counsel for the National Testing Agency (for short, “NTA”) has handed over the evaluation sheet of the petitioner, which revealed that petitioner has been rightly awarded the mark for question No.11, but no numbers have been awarded for question no. 141 and one number has been detected for not attempting the answer, as the evaluation sheet is showing (-); whereas the petitioner has rightly attempted the question no. 141 and circled the 'b' option, which is correct option as per the answer key. 4. The Hon'ble Apex Court was also seized with the issue with regard to the mass cheating and various other lacunas in conduct of NEET UG examination bearing Writ Petition (Civil) 335 of 2024, wherein vide order dated 15.07.2024, notices were issued in Transfer Petition (Civil) 1741/2024 preferred by the NTA. 4. The Hon'ble Apex Court was also seized with the issue with regard to the mass cheating and various other lacunas in conduct of NEET UG examination bearing Writ Petition (Civil) 335 of 2024, wherein vide order dated 15.07.2024, notices were issued in Transfer Petition (Civil) 1741/2024 preferred by the NTA. WPC No.3015/2024 again came up for hearing on 16.07.2024, wherein it was informed by the counsel for respondent-NTA that all matters relating to NEET UG 2024 has to be transferred and listed with Writ Petition (Civil) 335 of 2024, which was sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, subsequently, the matter was transferred vide order dated 16.07.2024 of this Court. 5. The arguments were closed in Writ Petition (Civil) 335 of 2024 on 22.07.2024 and the order was delivered on 22.07.2024 by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in which, Hon'ble Apex Court has only considered the submissions on whether the sanctity of NEET UG 2024 examination has been compromised or not and has made it clear that individual grievances will be looked by the appropriate forum; meaning thereby, that though the petition preferred by the petitioner bearing WPC No.3015/2024, was tagged but no hearing on merits could take place, and since the petitioner's grievance is individual grievance, and therefore, her grievance can be looked by this Court only under Article 226 jurisdiction. 6. Respondent No.2 has declared the result of NEET-UG 2024 and the present petitioner scored 696/720 marks and secured 2664 rank. A comparison of the OMR answer sheet of the petitioner with the evaluation sheet would reveal that, petitioner has attempted total 180 questions, out of which, petitioner gave right answer to 141 i.e. circled 'b' option and gave wrong answer to 3 questions and the marks which were to be awarded to the petitioner should be 701, but she has been awarded only 696 marks (as question no. 141 has been marked as wrong answer). 7. Thereafter, the petitioner has made the representation for correction of marks but of no avail. The respondent-NTA has still not paid any attention to the representations already made and has started the procedure for counselling, the petitioner has been left with no remedy but to approach this Court so she could have a fair chance in taking admission to a reputed Medical College. 8. The respondent-NTA has still not paid any attention to the representations already made and has started the procedure for counselling, the petitioner has been left with no remedy but to approach this Court so she could have a fair chance in taking admission to a reputed Medical College. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the computer/OMR scanner used for evaluation of OMR sheet have wrongfully did not read the right answer attempted by the petitioner for question No. 141. She further submits that the four marks which she has been deprived off and one mark which has been deducted; has drastically affected her rank by at least 500 candidates, which would otherwise put her in a better spot for securing admission in a premier medical institution of this country. It has been contended that the marks that have not been awarded to the petitioner even after opting for the correct answer is due to faulty OMR equipment being used by the Respondent-NTA. She placed reliance in the matter rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. reported in 2018 (2) SCC 357 to submit that the Court may permit re- evaluation of answer sheet when it is clearly visible without any inferential process that material error has been committed. She further placed reliance in the matter of Dibya Jyoti Nanda v. Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and another reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Ori 329 : (2019) 127 CLT 6 to contend that since there has admittedly been discrepancy in evaluation of marks in OMR sheet of the petitioner, which is arbitrary and capricious, the Court deems it proper to interfere with the same in greater interest of justice, equity and fair play. As such, this writ petition be allowed to the extent that the petitioner shall be awarded plus 4 marks for question No.141 instead of minus 1 mark, which was awarded because of the wrong evaluation of the answer sheet. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the NTA/respondent No.2 opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that previous writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking re-evaluation and allotment of correct marks as per amended answer key dated 31.05.2024 with respect to question No.11 and now, petitioner is seeking relief with regard to question No.141. He further submits that as per instruction No.4 issued by the NTA, the candidates should darken only one circle for each question, but in the OMR sheet of the petitioner, there is double bubbling in the question No.141, so that the OMR machine could not read the same and no mark has been awarded to the petitioner. He has placed reliance in the matter rendered by the Honb’le Supreme Court in the matter of State of Tamil Nadu v. V.G. Hemalathaa reported in AIR OnLine 2019 SC 969 to contend that the Instructions given to candidates taking examinations clearly bars the candidates from using double bubbling. The Instructions given to the candidates are mandatory and cannot be relaxed. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed as she has not followed the instructions given by the respondent-NTA while attempting the questions in the OMR sheet. 10. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the NMC adopted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for respondent No.2 and submit that as the petitioner has applied double bubbling, she could not get any mark for the said question No.141. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with writ petition. 12. Perusal of the record would show that earlier the petitioner has filed a writ petition being WPC No.3015 of 2024, in which, following relief(s) has been prayed for :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 to re-evaluate and allot the correct marks as per amended answer key dated 31.05.2024, that should have been granted to the petitioner, within a period of 7 days. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as deemed necessary as deem fit.” 13. In case of V.G. Hemalathaa (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus :- 9. In spite of the finding that there was no adherence to the Instructions, the High Court granted the relief, ignoring the mandatory nature of the Instructions. It cannot be said that such exercise of discretion should be affirmed by us, especially when such direction is in the teeth of the Instructions which are binding on the candidates taking the examinations. 10. In her persuasive appeal, Ms. It cannot be said that such exercise of discretion should be affirmed by us, especially when such direction is in the teeth of the Instructions which are binding on the candidates taking the examinations. 10. In her persuasive appeal, Ms. Mohana sought to persuade us to dismiss the appeal which would enable the Respondent to compete in the selection to the post of Civil Judge. It is a well-known adage that, hard cases make bad law. In Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India reported in (1985) 3 SCC 721 , Venkataramiah, J., held that: “13…. exercise of such power of moderation is likely to create a feeling of distrust in the process of selection to public appointments which is intended to be fair and impartial. It may also result in the violation of the principle of equality and may lead to arbitrariness. The cases pointed out by the High Court are no doubt hard cases, but hard cases cannot be allowed to make bad law. In the circumstances, we lean in favour of a strict construction of the Rules and hold that the High Court had no such power under the Rules. 11. Roberts, CJ. in Caperton v. A.T. Massey reported in 556 U.S. 868 (2009), held that: “Extreme cases often test the bounds of established legal principles. There is a cost to yielding to the desire to correct the extreme case, rather than adhering to the legal principle. That cost has been demonstrated so often that it is captured in a legal aphorism: “Hard cases make bad law.” 12. After giving a thoughtful consideration, we are afraid that we cannot approve the judgment of the High Court as any order in favour of the candidate who has violated the mandatory Instructions would be laying down bad law. The other submission made by Ms. Mohana that an order can be passed by us under Article 142 of the Constitution which shall not be treated as a precedent also does not appeal to us.” 14. At this stage, it would be relevant to quote the instructions given by the NTA along with the OMR sheet :- “1. This answer sheet consists of two copies, the Original copy and the Office copy. Do not attempt to separate or displace them while recording information/answers. 2. Use Only Blue/Black Ball Point Pen to darken the appropriate circle. 3. Please darken the complete circle. This answer sheet consists of two copies, the Original copy and the Office copy. Do not attempt to separate or displace them while recording information/answers. 2. Use Only Blue/Black Ball Point Pen to darken the appropriate circle. 3. Please darken the complete circle. 4. Darken ONLY ONE CIRCLE for each Question as shown below : x x x 5. Answer once marked cannot be changed. 6. Please do not make any stray marks on the Answer Sheet. Incorrect Marks/Stray marks may be read by the OMR scanner. 7. Rough work must not be done on the Answer Sheet. 8. Mark your answer in the appropriate space in the Answer Sheet against the Number corresponding to the question. 9. The Candidate is NOT allowed to carry the Original or Office copy of OMR response sheet with him/her on conclusion of the examination.” 15. Perusal of the OMR sheet of the petitioner, it would reveal that at the question No.141, there is a double bubbling. According to instruction No.2 of the NTA, the candidates should darken only one circle for each question and they should avoid leaving any gaps or altering the shape of the circle, as this could lead to the answer being misinterpreted. 16. In the case at hand, though the petitioner has attempted question No.141, but she did not darken the one circle only and she applied double bubbling, which is a serious error in view of instruction given by the NTA at time of examination. 17. Considering the matter in its entirety as well as considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties as also applied the principles of the aforementioned judgments and the instructions given by the NTA, we find that the petitioner has applied double bubbling while attempting the question No.141, which is reflected from her OMR answer sheet, as such, the OMR scanner could not read the same and has not given any mark for the said question. 18. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any good ground for interference in this writ petition exercising our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. The writ petition, lacks merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.