Deeba Habib vs State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others

Petitioner appeared in common entrance test 2000 held by Competent Authority Entrance Examination, Government of Jammu and Kashmir in

July, 2000. In the result notification petitioner is shown to have secured 154 marks in aggregate (with break up: Physics 54, Chemistry 55, Biology

45 marks): Petitioner was selected on her merit against on of the payment seats, as submitted by her counsel. Petitioner on rechecking of answer

sheet alleges of having discovered that one question each in Chemistry and Biology, with correct answers have been left out and not evaluated. In

terms of Rule 15 of Information Brochure for the two correct answer petitioner would have got two marks (1 mark for each correct answer) and

thereby, she would have secured 156 marks in stead of 154 marks awarded to her. With 156 aggregate marks, being a female candidate, she

would have earns seat in MBBS in any of the Government Medical Colleges of the Jammu & Kashmir State, in as much as .female candidates

having earned 155 marks have been selected to undergo the MBBS Professional Course in the Government Medical Colleges, Srinagar. The

petitioner prays that the respondents/competent authority be issued mandamus to grant/admit petitioner to a Government Medical College for

undergoing MBBS Professional Course in Open Merit Category ( OMC ) of females.

Respondents No. 2,3 and 4 of the Competent Authority Entrance Examination have filed reply an affidavit of its RegistrarRespondent No.4

Respondent No .6 has also filed reply. Respondent No 6 has withdrawn from raised controversy, in as much as, it has pleaded, rightly as

conceded by counsel on either side that the selection and allotment of candidates to Professional Colleges is a matter for the Jammu & Kashmir

Competent Authority Entrance Examination and not for the SKIMS. It is not in any manner involved in the process of selection to MBBS course.

The contesting respondents 2 to 4 have in reply pleaded that the petitioner marked two answers of question No. 25 as also of question No.62 in

chemistry paper. She did same thing in respect of question No.16 in Biology paper. After marking two answers in respect of each of these

questions, she has tried to erase one answer and has damaged the answer sheet. The computer scanner has not evaluated these questions

accordingly. On the top of the answer sheet in the instruction column, it is specifically prescribed that ""Question once marked, no change is

possible Darken the circle if you have made up your mind"". The very same instruction is also unequivocally mentioned in Information Brochure

under Subclauses 4 and 5 of clause 15. Due to the cutting and erasure as prescribed, the answers are to be treated as incorrect and no credit is to

be given for the answers. It is in this manner that the petitioner has been correctly evaluated and has secured 154 marks. No answer correctly

attempted by the petitioner has been left out unassessed. It is also stated that no Medical Colleges of the State can accommodate even a single

candidate, as they are at saturation level after colleges are been allotted seats as per their statutorily prescribed intake capacities. There being no

seat available in any of the Medical or Dental Colleges, petitioner at this stage, cannot be given admission against a nonpayment seat in any of the

colleges. Besides, the petitioner has failed to make a selection grade in Government Medical College of State on merits. The Writ petition is

prayed to be dismissed.

The record have been produced under directions by Mr. J.A. Kawoosa, Mr.Kawoosa cites Admission Committee CM 1995 and anr Vs.

Anand Kumar and anr (1998) Supreme court Cases 333, for his submission that the version given by the Competent Authority Entrance

Examination Government of Jammu & Kashmir as against the version of petitioner should be accepted by the court and in that context record need

not be examined by the court. Mr. Kawoosa goes on further to submit that in case court deems it proper to examine the record, the same may be

examined to put at rest, the whole controversy raised by petitioner of she not having been evaluated properly/correctly in the matter of assessment

of marks.

Sub clause (4) and (5) of clause 15 of Information Brochure of Common Entrance Test for the year 2000 reads as under:

15) Evaluation

(4) ln case of cutting/overwriting and more than one answer marked to a particular question no credit will be given. (5)The candidates shall not cut

or overwriting will be deemed to be an incorrect answer.

Sub clause (3) of clause 22 further to this Information Brochure reads as under:

22) Method of Answering Question

(3)For recording the answer, first find the question o number on your answer sheet and then darken the option number of the answer you have

chosen to be the correct answer in the blank circle provided for the purpose, against each (Question number) by using blue or black ball point

pen.

After this cluse, under"" Instruction for filling the information and marking the answers on the sheet"", clause (3) further reads:

(3) Please do not blacken more than one circle in any column because the machine will not read the information given in a column where more

than one circle are blackened. The machine will give zero score for every question in which more than one circle in any column are blackened.

7.The answer sheet as also the ""specimen of answer sheet"" with this In formation Brochure specifically on top in teralia reads:

Since once marked, no change is possible, darken the circle if you have made up your mind."" This instruction regarding marking of answer to

the question is in accord with instructions and information given by the Information Brochure vide Sub clause (4) and (5) of clause 15 and clause 3

(ibid). The record reveals that the petitioner has in Biology with code 03 actually marked two answers against question No.16. One of the answers

with blue pen. Then attempt is made to erase on of the answers, but in the choosen circle the darken space is not completely erased leaving behind

mark of cutting. Similarly, in Chemistry with subject code 02, two circles have been choosen, each against question No.25 and against question

No.26. Then an attempt has been made to erase one of the circle. However, the circle could not be completely erased and against question 62 a

cutting/overwriting impression is left behind, whereas, in respect of question 25 not only the cutting impression is there, but even the answer sheet

at erased choosen circle is damaged.

Obviously, the pleaded case of respondents/competent authority is fully supported by record of the answer sheets. This being so, no fault can be

found with the Competent Authority. The non evaluation of questions by the computer Scaner/machine is fully covered by the Instructions, as

contained in the Information Brochure. If petitioner has got zero score for the above questions, she is to blame none else than herself.

Note is also taken of the fact that no malafidies are attributed to competent authority or for that matter to any of the respondents. There is no

supporting material to believe the version of the petitioner. The record goes against her. In such situation, version of competent authority of

Entrance Examination, the authority competent to select candidates to combined professional course of MBBS/BDS/, BE, BVSc etc, has to be

accepted

In reply, it is stated that no seat is available in Government or private Medical or Dental Colleges of the State, as the seats have been filled to

the optimal level as per prescribed in take capacity for the above colleges of the State. The petitioner who has grouse of nonselection in the

Professional Govt. Colleges of the State, should has impleaded the candidates (who as per her, were selected) with lesser merit as/compared to

her. No candidate(s) has been so impleaded. Even if petitioner would had succeeded to claim her selection and allotment to a Government

College, then unless the candidate who had to make way for her was not impleaded as party, she could not have made grade to the College. The

intake capacity of any of the professional college cannot be increased expect by the competent authority. This is another flaw in the writ petition.

In result, for aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed at thresh hold. Record is returned to Mr.J.A.Kawoosa.