AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Man Mohan Singh Liberan, C.J.—This common order will dispose of W.P. No. 8778 of 1997 and connected batch of writ petitions as the
questions raised and the facts are largely common with some immaterial difference of facts. The only pertinent questions raised by the learned
Counsel for the parties are:
(1) Whether in the matter of admission to the Professional courses like Medicine, etc. the authorities could"" admit the students as per the merit-list,
made on the basis of the total marks obtained in the eligibility qualifying examination and the marks obtained in the Common Entrance Test?
(2) Whether the candidates, either in the eligibility qualifying examination or in the Entrance test, can have inspection any revaluation of their
answer-scripts?
We may appositely advert to certain admitted facts emerging from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions, common counter-affidavit
filed by the Respondents, facts admitted during the course of the arguments and inferences resulted therefrom. Petitioners took their +2
Examinations i.e. Final year of the Higher Secondary Course in the month of March/April, 1997. They applied for admission to the Professional
Courses such as Medicine, etc. for the academic session 1997-98.G.O. No. 137 dated 3-4-1997, prescribing mechanism for admission to
Professional Courses, on the basis of the regulations prevailing, and entrance examinations were held on 26th and 27th April, 97 was issued some
time in April, 1997, and results for the same published on 20.7.97. Time-table for admission and other modalities, rules to determine merit, etc.
were notified through the Prospectus issued i.e., last date for receipt of the applications 11-6-1997; declaration of results on 20.6.1997; last date
for joining the courses 1.7.1997 and the commencing of the courses 2.7.1997. Medical Council of India, with previous sanction of the Central
Government, vide Gazette Notification dated 17.5.1997, promulgated Regulations for Graduate Medical Education (hereinafter referred to as ''the
Medical Regulations''), which envisaged that candidates seeking admission to M.B.B.S. Course were required to be of 17 years of age on or
before the 1st day of July of the year commencing the prescribed academic session of the said course; to have passed the qualifying examination
i.e., the Higher Secondary Examination or the Indian School Certificate Examination. There are other eligibility qualifications prescribed which are
not relevant for determining the questions raised in the writ petitions in hand. The mode of selection is provided by Regulation No. 5 of the Medical
Regulations. It would be expedient to re-produce the same in verbatim, which runs thus:
Selection of Students''.
The selection of students to medical college shall be based solely on merit of the candidate. For determination of merit, the following criteria be
adopted uniformly through out the country:
(1) In States having only one Medical College and one University, Board/Examining Body conducting the qualifying examination, the marks
obtained at such qualifying examination may be taken into consideration:
(2) In States having more than one University/Board/Examining Body conducting the qualifying examination for where there is more than one
Medical College under the administrative control of one authority a competitive entrance examination should be held so as to achieve a uniform
evaluation as there may be variation of standard at qualifying examination conducted by different agencies,
(3) Where there are more than one college in a State and only one University/Board conducting the qualifying examination then a Joint Selection
Board be constituted for all the colleges;
(4) A competitive entrance examination is absolutely necessary in the cases of institutions of All India character;
(5) To be eligible for competitive examination the candidate must have passed any of the qualifying examinations as enumerated under the Head
Note of eligibility criteria.
Provided also that:
(i) In case of admission on the basis of qualifying examination, a candidate for admission to medical course must have obtained not less than 50%
of marks in English and 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together at the qualifying examination.
(ii) In cases of admission on the basis of a competitive entrance examination, a candidate for admission to medical course must have obtained not
less than 50% marks in English and 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together, both at qualifying and competitive examinations.
Provided further than in respect of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, the marks obtained
be read as 40% instead of 50%.
The Prospectus issued by the Respondents in terms of G.O. No. 137 issued on 3.4.97 for admission to Professional Courses, for the Academic
Session 1997-98 provided that selection of candidates for seats falling under Categories I, II and III will be made by the Selection Committee
appointed by the Government on the basis of qualifying marks in Science subjects worked out to the base mark of 200 in Higher Secondary
Course (Academic) or other equivalent examinations and the common entrance test mark put together on merit.
Petitioners, after referring to the marks secured by them, claimed that since the marks obtained by them in the Higher Secondary Examinations
taken by them as well as in the entrance test are by no means in consonance with the''marks they used to secure at the various examinations taken
by them prior to the Higher Secondary Examinations as well as the entrance test, doubts have been thrown with respect to the proper valuation of
the answer-scripts for the reasons stated in the later part of this judgment..
Petitioners took the Higher Secondary Examinations, under the Scheme issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, for the award of Higher
Secondary Course Certificate. The salient feature of the said Scheme, relevant for the purpose of answering the questions raised herein is that mere
shall be a Government examination at the end of the Second year of the Higher Secondary Course in March/April and also Supplementary
examination in September /October every year.
In short, the claim of the Petitioners is, after passing the X Standard examination in 1995, they joined XI Standard i.e., I year of the Higher
Secondary Course. They secured good marks in the I year examination and earlier too. After the results of the Final Year examination of the
Higher Secondary Course were declared, there was a murmur among the students community and the parents as well as in the media through
representations, proclaiming that there were variations in the marks obtained by the students in various subjects and the variation was in some
cases to the extent of even 100 marks. Thus there was no proper evaluation of their answer sheets. In view of the discrepancy in evaluation of the
answer sheets, examiners'' call for strike, Petitioners'' earlier track-record of marks, Petitioners got apprehensive that marks were not either
correctly totalled or marks not awarded for the questions correctly answered or not awarded at all or marks secured not correctly reflected in the
mark statement. It is also averred that the teachers teaching language subjects were asked to evaluate the Science subjects. Petitioners further
apprehended that the mistake in evaluation, mistake in change of papers, mistake in assigning dummy number or the original registered number
being carried out in the answer sheets might have occurred because the examiners were asked to evaluate 20 answer sheets in the morning session
and 20 answer sheets in the evening session, which were excessive in number. There may be mistakes in feeding the data into the computers and
without scrutinising the manuscript no useful purpose would be served by re-checking the marks through computer. Petitioners further sought for
revaluation and retotalling prevailing in other Universities. Petitioners claimed that as the rule of fairness and transperancy was not followed in
evaluation demands reevaluation in the presence of the candidates and not mere re-totalling and checking whether any question was not evaluated
or correctly tabulated.
A common counter-affidavit has been filed by the Respondents, wherein the allegations made by the Petitioners are refuted. Procedure or
power for reevaluation is denied. Only power vested in the Board envisaged retotalling of marks or checking whether any answer remain
unmarked and marks have been correctly tabulated. Petitioners'' right to claim revaluation is denied. Petitioners were intimated that on retotalling of
the marks in the subjects applied for there was no change in the result. Respondents claim that nearly 347000 students took up the examinations in
the month of March/April, 1997. About 25 Central Valuation Camps were constituted throughout the State for evaluating the answer scripts. The
answer sheets of the candidates appearing in the Educational Districts, numbering 60, were divided into two Zones for each subject and the
answer sheets of various subjects pertaining to one zone to Educational District were allotted to the Valuation Camp situated in other zone as per
the predetermined programme. It is not only the subjects for evaluation were interchanged to one zone to another, but also in some cases, the
examiners deployed for valuation work were also interchanged in order to eliminate the scope for any malpractice. Valuation Camp was stated to
be headed by an official of the Education Department in the rank of District Educational Officer, Chief Educational Officer and above and were
designated as Camp Officers. They were assisted by certain categories of staff.
Answer sheets relating to Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Botany, Biology and Zoology were evaluated under Dummy Number System. Two
separate groups of persons were engaged by the Camp Officer i.e., one for shuffling the answer scripts received from the examination centres and
another for assigning dummy number on the answer scripts. Examiners for evaluation were appointed by the Directorate. It is the Chief Examiner
who supervised the evaluation work carried on by a minimum of five and maximum of twelve Assistant Examiners allotted to him. Each Assistant
Examiner was given 12 answer scripts for evaluation in the forenoon session and 12 in the afternoon session. Key answers were prepared for each
subject by the subject-experts for evaluating the answer scripts for the examiners'' guidance and were sent to each centre well in advance. The
Chief Examiner took out a random check by scrutinising the answer scripts evaluated by each Assistant Examiners, Mark sheets were prepared by
the Assistant Examiners which were counter-signed by the Chief Examiner. Thus the marks awarded on the answer sheets were carried out in the
mark sheet, which were checked by the Marks Verification Officer with the help of Tabulators attached to them in the Camp. It was only
thereafter the mark sheets were handed over to the Camp Officer, who ensured its delivery, through Special Messengers, to the Data Centre. The
whole process of evaluation lasted for three to four weeks.
Due to the flash strike by the teachers, smooth functioning of Camps were hampered. So the time for evaluation and tabulation was increased.
Two separate check-lists, one containing the details relating to dummy numbers punched and the other for the mark-sheets punched were sent to
the office for verification and it was only after the verification by the Government Date Centre, the marks of the subjects evaluated under Dummy
Number System were carried over to the original register numbers assigned to each candidate only at the time of publication of results. The
tabulated mark register is a permanent record. The mark certificates of the candidates were printed on the basis of the information sent by the
Government Data Centre.
In previous year three days'' time was only given for applying for retotalling after receipt of the mark sheet, while this year, in view of the
peculiar circumstances, ten days'' time was given. Results being published on 23.5.97, 5.6 1997 was fixed as the last date for applying for
retotalling of the marks. Details of total number of candidates who have applied for retotalling of marks within the prescribed time runs thus:
Name of the No. of
Subject applications
received
Mathematics7198
Physics 3092
Chemistry 3479
Biology 1534
Botany 79
Zoology 85
15467
Applications for retotalling were processed at Government Data Centre. Retotalling was done by the examiners specifically engaged for this
purpose. Only qualified teachers were deployed at all stages for evaluation or retotalling of the marks. On error being detected, the candidates
concerned were informed forthwith by registered post where revision is required otherwise by ordinary post. It was conceded that the staff
deployed for revaluation or retotalling is too low to carry out the work load, and in case of exigency army of staff of other Department was
pressed into service to attend to the work. It was stated that out of 15467 applications received for retotalling, revision of marks on account of
retotalling has been effected in respect of 839 candidates. The process of retotalling was commenced on 2.6.1997 and completed on 25.6.1997.
It is accepted that delay in evaluation did occur yet any irregularity because of the strike of the teachers is denied. Every step to eliminate the
possibility of human error was taken. There may be some rare border line cases in which there was a revision of marks. Right to reevaluation or
production of answer scripts or reevaluation in the presence of Petitioners was denied.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners impugned the G.O. No. 137 dated 3.4.1997 for the selection on the basis of the merit list prepared by the
total marks obtained in the eligibility examination and in the entrance test on the sole ground that it runs counter to the Medical Regulations issued
by one Medical Council of India.
We heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The Government Order, impugned in these writ
petitions, was issued on 3.4.1997. The students prepared themselves to take up the entrance test on the basis of the past precedent continued by
GO. No. 137 dated 3.4.1997 for the academic session 1997-98. The Medical Regulations issued by the Medical Council of India came into force
prospectively only on 17.5.1997. Process of admission to professional courses commenced by which the emphasis was laid that the criteria for
admission would be the merit. Medical Council of India laid emphasis on a competitive entrance test in cases of institutions of all India character
though minimum marks required to have been secured in the eligibility examination as 50%. Regulation No. 5 of the Medical Regulations, as re-
produced in the earlier part of the judgment, in our opinion, is not contrary to the instructions issued for preparation of the merit list. The object of
G.O. No. 137 of 3.4.1997 is also to ensure the admission on merit as is that of the Medical Regulations issued by the Medical Council of India. It
has been Well established that the Prospectus and the instructions issued by the Respondents, from time to time, are the magna carta for the
students seeking admission. The State''s power to issue rules or regulations, or alter or even repeal and reissue such rules or regulations is
incidental to its executive or administrative power. We are unable to hold that the Prospectus and instructions issued by the Respondents run
contrary to the Medical Regulations issued by the Medical Council of India, which desired a particular process to be followed in the matter of
admission to Professional Courses. The Medical Regulations do not debar the State from adopting any other process in addition to the Medical
Regulations. No restriction has been put on the executive powers of the State. The students having commenced their course in the hope of a
particular process for admission to be followed not in the very far but in that very year in which they are seeking admission cannot be subjected to
all of a sporadic frequent change without there being any prior reasonable period of notice. It is axiomatic that unless the decision, or regulative
action of the authorities is intrinsically without objective criteria and cannot be sustained on the touch-stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India, Court would not interfere or substitute its opinion. Merely that there can be two opinions with respect to the policy of preparing the merit list,
the Courts would not interfere in such decisions solely on the ground that other view appears to be better and more desirable.
The G.O. No. 137 in consonance of which prospectus were issued prior to the coming into force of the Medical Regulations issued by the
Medical Council of India providing for regulating the admission. The Medical Regulations issued by the Medical Council of India did not debar the
State Government from making any additional guidelines for regulating the admission. Evaluating the merit by various modes is well-known matters
in the academic field. It is for the academicians to evaluate the merit of the students which depends upon several human factOrs. 14. In view of the
observations made above, we are of the considered view that the methodology adopted by the Respondents to prepare the merit list for admission
i.e. on the basis of the total marks secured in the eligibility examination and the marks obtained in the entrance test is not violative of the regulations
of Graduate Medical Education, 1997 issued by the Medical Council of India. May the process of merit and competitive test which is more
comprehensible mode on the merit of the students be one of the accepted modes or may have advantage on others. Yet, to test the competitive
merit, there is a pronouncement of the Honourable Supreme Court. We have no doubt that the State, in future, would keep in mind the regulations
and provide the merit list to be prepared solely on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates in the common competitive entrance test. We
may make it clear that the above observations would not debar the State or any other authority competent to make regulations or issue instructions
to provide for judging the merit of the students or provide for any other mode and mechanism to test the merit of the students in addition to the
competitive entrance test provided by the Medical Regulations, 1997 though not contrary to the one provided by Medical Council of India.
Academic admission on fructified principle will dampen the creativity of the authorities to permit them to lay down their own standards according to
exigencies.
We answer question No. 1 in affirmative.
Respondents'' act of declining to reevaluate the answer-scripts is impugned being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. The foundation for the challenge is the doubt of the Petitioners in view of the factual matrix averred to the effect that there were large scale
discrepancies found on the correction/re-examination of the +2 examination answer-sheets. Totalling of the marks were found erroneous. If we
may hasten to add, in W.P. No. 8824 of 1997, the Petitioner in the same breath averred that he was given to understand that malpractices has
taken place in issuing revised mark sheets to the Petitioners. The students secured less marks than expected, as compared with their past
performance. Teachers went on a flash strike and thus there was chaotic scene. Thus it is apprehended that answer-scripts on which marks were
awarded does not relate to them. They have grave doubts that mistake must have crept in the process of evaluation of answer-scripts. It was also
alleged that language teachers were entrusted with the work of evaluation of Science subjects. There are erroneous answers in the key answers, on
the annals of which the marks were to be awarded to the Petitioners. Petitioners suspect some irregularities might have happened in assigning
dummy numbers and carrying out the marks to the original registered numbers. Examiners were allotted 20 answer-scripts in the forenoon session
and 20 answer-scripts in the afternoon session for evaluation, thus there was no sufficient time for proper evaluation. The marks were awarded
mechanically by the examiners because of the enormous answer sheets, limited number of examiners within a limited time. The provisions for
retotalling, without producing the manuscripts for scrutinising, by computer is only illusory, and no useful purpose would be served. Petitioners
prayed for production of the answer scripts on the grounds of speculative itinerary of irregularities pointed out in the earlier part of the judgment. It
was further prayed that the ocess of re-totalling and re-evaluation could not only be undergone with respect to the only students who applied for
the same but with respect to all the writ Petitioners at least. Petitioners further sought the disclosure of the factual matrix as well as the statistics,
from the Respondents, disclosing the number of Valuation Centres, number of Examiners deployed in each centre, duration of valuation for each
examiner, number of answer-scripts allotted to each examiner, etc., as the experts opined that for proper evaluation time needed is 12 to 15
minutes while herein only Half was provided. It would be expedient to notice some of instances of pleas in verbatim as is the case in W.P. No.
9072 of 1997 Petitioner stated, ""therefore the Petitioner has great doubts that some mistake should have occurred in valuation"". Similarly it was
averred ""either there was mixing up of answer scripts or some answers were not corrected or total marks were not counted properly"". We have
scrutinized the pleas taken in other connected writ petitions and found that they are in pari materia with the one reproduced above.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners in order to support their submissions relied on Dr. R.K. Goyal Vs. State of U.P. and others, ; Nupur and
others Vs. Punjab University, ; H. Nagaraj Vs. Gulbarga University, ; M.C. Khandelwal Vs. Chairman, Board of Secondary Education and
Others, ; 1985 W.L.R.449 (Arumugham v. The Registrar, University of Madras) and B. Rajappa Vs. The Addl. Controller of Examination,
University of Madras and Another, .
Learned Counsel for the Respondents refuted not only the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, but has also argued
that the Petitioners having taken the examination under the regulations cannot challenge the regulations by itself. Petitioners approached the Court
belatedly. The rules, instructions or regulations, on their plain reading, do not provide for scrutiny of answer sheets post publication or for its re-
evaluation or re-examination. The allegations of the students or their parents has hardly any basis and an error here and there or in one or two
cases or even in fifty cases out of 347000 candidates is hardly any basis to assume and lend credibility to their apprehensions what the Petitioners
attempted to state as referred to in the earlier paragraphs of the judgment. If this is permitted the system will itself be bogged down. Courts cannot
assume the role of an appellate authority. The students cannot be allowed to participate in the process of re-evaluation or verify the marks of the
evaluation. Finality and certainty is in the public interest.
In order to support the Respondents'' contentions, learned Counsel for the Respondents relied upon 1995 (I) ILR 1095 (S.R.. Bhupeshkar v.
Secretary, Selection Committee); Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another Vs. Paritosh
Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Others, ; State of Orissa v. Prajnaparamita Samanta, (1996) 7 SCC 106 President, Board of Secondary Education v.
D.Suvankar 2006 JT 10 ; 1995 (1) SCC Supp. 192 (Dr. Ganga Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar); Miss Srumoyu Ghosh Vs. The State of W. B.
and others, and 1995 (2) L.W. 596 (F.B.) (Bhupeshkar v. Selection Committee Sabarmathi Hostel).
The conspectus of law, as emerged from the precedents cited by the learned Counsel for the parties, is to the effect:
(1) That the relief in exercising the writ jurisdiction cannot be extended to nondiligent persons i.e., no relief can be granted to those who approach
the Court at their sweet-will.
(2) The Courts cannot assume the role of an appellate authority. Courts should only interfere with the decisions falling within the jurisdiction of the
educational institutions when it must do so in the interest of justice.
(3) Rules provide for the limited scrutiny of answer scripts post publication and not providing for re-evaluation or re-examination.
(4) Candidates cannot be allowed to participate in the process of evaluation of their answer sheets or verify the evaluation made by the examiners.
(5) Finality is the virtue of the public interest otherwise it would lead to uncertainty especially when it involved the relative merit.
(6) The students having applied under the rules set out in the Prospectus, appeared and took a chance, cannot now challenge the very rule
contained in the Prospectus. Petitioners are estopped by their own act and conduct.
(7) Where there is no rule for reevaluation no writ can be issued for the same. Re scrutiny or re-examination of papers can be made to a limited
extent provided by the rules for limited post-publication scrutiny of papers.
(8) Petitioners have no right for reevaluation or for production of answer sheets. Reference may be made to Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Others, .
(9) Courts should give effect to the plain meaning to the regulations irrespective of its consequences.
(10) The judgment of the Madras High Court in 1989 Mad. 242 : 1989 W.L.R.55 (T. Rajappa v. Addl. Controller of Examinations, Madras
University) runs counter to the view taken by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education and Another Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Others, , where it was observed that it will be wholly wrong for the courts to make
a pedentic and purely idealistic approach to problems of this nature isolating from actual realities and grass-root problems involved in the working
of the whole system and unmindful of consequences which would emanate if purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be
propounded. It is not permissible for the Courts to bring in a new theory and have that incorporated in the rules pronounced. After observing the
same, the Hon''ble Supreme Court rightly declined to countenance the proposition of reevaluation by comparison.
(11) It is not for the Courts to decide whether the remedies provided by the Act are sufficient or not. All restrictions have to be considered in
public interest in order to advance public purpose or the object to be carried out and should not be excessive and disproportionate to the needs of
the situation:
To consider the relief claimed by the Petitioners on the factual matrix averred by them as referred to in the earlier part of the judgment, we are
of the considered view that there are no reasonable basis to assume the apprehensions spelt out by the Petitioners. On our specific directions, the
Respondents have produced the charts, tabulations, etc. showing the number of answer-sheets and subjects valued at a particular Valuation Camp
along with the duration of the Camp, number of Chief Examiners, Assistant Examiners deployed, number of total scripts allotted to each examiner
per day, number of answer sheets valued on each day, etc. Respondents have further produced the Scheme or Instructions to the Camp Officers
of the Central Valuation Centre couched in the form of an affidavit. There is nothing on record to assume contrary to what is contained therein.
Respondents have categorically denied that language teachers were entrusted with the job of evaluating the Science papers. From the affidavit filed
by the Respondents, it emerged that each Assistant Examiner was allotted with 24 answer scripts per day i.e. 12 in the forenoon session and 12 in
the afternoon session, which, in our view, cannot be termed as inordinately excessive in number so as to provide an opportunity to the examiners
not to apply their mind in the process of evaluation. In the ordinary course of business it is presumed that they did apply their mind and had
sufficient time to examine such answer-script. There is nothing placed on record even to assume the apprehension spelt out by the Petitioners.
We further find support that there was nothing of the kind of irregularity appears to have happened as averred by the Petitioners from the very fact
that out of 347000 candidates hardly 15000 have applied for retotalling etc. and out of 15000 hardly 150 has approached this Court.
In our considered view, the remedy sought for by the Petitioners in these writ petitions of re-evaluation, in their presence, showing the
manuscripts, key-answers, etc. would be worse, if we may say so, than the malady as it would not only open the floodgate for mal-practices
especially when in the system the Respondents have introduced marking by assigning dummy numbers on the answer sheets to provide
inaccessibility to the examiners by the students and to maintain secrecy in the marking, the very object of it stand frustrated. The factum of mal
practices asobserved earlier, is not far to assume. In W.P. No. 8824 of 1997 the Petitioner averred that he was given to understand that mal
practices have taken place in issuing revised mark-statements to the candidates. There is no gain-saying that the State can make its own rules and
regulations to do its business which should ordinarily satisfy the test of rationality. It is the prerogative of the State of decide such matters through
the policy though may not satisfy all which one should be followed. The Scheme brought to our notice, as reproduced earlier, is in consonance with
the available rules and regulations of the Board after taking into consideration incontroverted factors.
The allegations made by the Petitioners are suggestive in character and based on assumptions. Sporadic incidents of wrong totalling does not
lead to an inference that the entire process of evaluation, totalling of 347000 answer sheets, was wrong. The averments made in the writ petitions
forming the basis for seeking the relief of re-evaluation cannot be either termed sufficient or can be claimed to be enough, keeping in view its
repercussions having an impact on the entire process of evaluation, as sufficient and desirable to order reevaluation by interferring in the decision of
the Respondents by substituting our view in that of an administrative agency, especially when the averments have been denied and there are no
reasonable basis to assume or infer the facts averred on the basis of assumption..
We may make it clear that though we find no ground to interfere in exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction yet, we may hasten to add as it is
usual that the administration must be rooted in confidence and confidence is destroyed where people begin to think that it is rooted in secrecy. The
decisions of the public authorities are not ordinarily expected to stand on stringent technicalities in the peculiar circumstances demanding. We have
no doubt that wherever any of the Petitioners apply to the authorities for satisfying himself/herself that the evaluation has been made does not relate
to his or her script, the authorities, on being satisfied, on the materials placed before it, may at its discretion at an appropriate cost, satisfy itself that
the script evaluated relates to the applicant. The observations made above are only suggestive and advisory which we hope will be accepted by the
Respondents in its true spirit.
In view of the observations made above, we answer question No. 2 in the negative.
We find no merit in the writ petitions. Accordingly the writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. Connected W.M.P. No. 13999
etc. of 1997 are also dismissed. BANCS.