Shbavani Ghosh (Miss) vs The West Bengal Board of Examination for Admission Engineering, Medical and Technological Degree Colleges

Ashok Kumar Chakraborty, J.—This writ petition is directed against the alleged illegal and arbitrary allotment of marks to the Petitioner in the Joint Entrance Examination in 1993 held on 24th and 25th April, 1993.

The Petitioner''s case is that she having initially obtained''594 marks in the Higher Secondary Examination for which she was placed in the second division she applied for reassessment of the answer scripts and upon reassessment she was given 651 marks as a result of which she was placed in the first division. The Petitioner has consistently a good academic career. She was awarded Scholarship at Class VI and National Scholarship at the stage of Class VIM. She also obtained National Scholarship in the Madhyamik Examination. She appeared in the Joint Entrance Examination in 1993 but her name did not appear in the list of successful candidates. In the Joint Entrance Examination she was confirmed that she would do well because in Medical papers, namely, Chemistry, Physics and Bio-Science she answered to the best of her ability but the authorities did not make correct assessment of her answer scripts. It is also alleged that as there is no scope for review and/or re-assessment of the Answer Scripts so there is every possibility that the answer scripts of the Petitioner were not properly valued or examined. The Petitioner, has accordingly alleged that unless the answer scripts in Medical Group are reexamined and/or reassessed by proper authorities the Petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury. The Petitioner has accordingly filed this writ application for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to admit the Petitioner in any Medical College after reviewing and/or reassessing the Answer scripts of the Petitioner on the last Joint Entrance Examination in 1993, and also prayed for a writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the Respondents to produce the records or necessary papers of this case to this Court.

In the affidavit-in-opposition Respondent No. 1 has denied the allegations of the Petitioner. Its main contention, however, is that since the Petitioner has not given any particulars forming the basis of her allegations in support of the prayer for issuance of a rule she would not be entitled to any assistance of the writ Court. It was also alleged, that the Board only provides the merit list of the Entrance Examination to the Central Selection Committee/Jadavpur University, and the final selection rests with them. The Board does not publish nor communicate the result to any individual applicant and it does not have any provision for post-publication scrutiny and review and hence will not entertain any such application. Copies of the above rules framed by the Board for Joint Entrance Examination, 1993 were supplied to all candidates along with the application form and the Petitioner accordingly sat in the examination with full knowledge of the rules. It was also alleged that there is good deal of difference between the Admission Test and Qualifying Examination. In case of qualifying examination there is provision for review and post publication scrutiny, but in admission test it is not feasible to provide for the same since on the basis of the result of the Joint Entrance Examination the candidate will be admitted to the Engineering/Medical or Technological Degree Colleges where admission will have to be made within a particular date. If after the admission test, review or post publication scrutiny of answer scripts have to be made, it would almost be impossible to complete the work of admission, and consequently the academic session of the Medical, Engineering and Technological Decree Courses cannot be started within the due date and completed within the prescribed period. It was further alleged that after the Joint Entrance Examination is held by the Board, the marks are tabulated by the different tabulators who are the teachers of Engineering, Technological and Medical Degree Colleges. In the meantime, requisitions are obtained from Medical and Engineering Colleges specifying the number of candidates, according to the merit in the Joint Entrance Examination which would be sent to them to enable them to make their own selection. The Respondent has given an elaborate procedure by which the secrecy of the answer scripts is maintained. It was alleged that in such circumstances no maneuvering in respect of any answer script is possible. The Respondent has accordingly prayed for dismissal of the application.

Heard the submission of Mr. A.P. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. D.K. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the Respondent No. l. None appeared for other Respondents to contest the matter. Mr. A.P. Chatterjee, learned advocate has frankly submitted that according to the rules framed by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education for admission to the Engineering, Medical and Technological Degree Colleges for 1993 there is no scope for review or re-examination of the papers. Mr. Chatterjee, however, submitted that in the facts of the case his client should be entitled to have the answer scripts called for and examined by the Court to satisfy itself that marks in the answer scripts have been properly given.

5: Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate for the Respondent No. 1 strongly opposed this contention of Mr. Chatterjee and submitted that not only there is no scope for review or reassessment of the answer scripts of any candidate in the J.E.E. but also there is no provision for post-publication scrutiny of the result. Mr. Banerjee also submitted that there is no scope for filing the writ application inasmuch as in the absence of any material, mere allegation that the answer scripts of the candidates were not properly examined shall not entitle the candidates to come before the writ Court. For this purpose he referred to the case of West Bengal Board of Examination for Admission to Engineering, Medical and Technological Degree Colleges v. Dr. Jitendra Lal Banerjee A.I. Ft. 1984 Cal. 52 where it has been held "A writ Petitioner is required to give all particulars and the basis of the allegations in support of the prayer for the issuance of the Rule. A mere allegation without any material in support of the case will not entitle a writ Petitioner to ask for any assistance from High Court, for, otherwise any unsuccessful candidate in any examination may file a writ petition alleging that the answer scripts have not been properly assessed by an examiner." My attention was also drawn to the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Others, where it has been held that "The procedure evolved by the Board for ensuring fairness and accuracy in evaluation of the answer books has made the system as full proof as can be possible and it can not be said that the denial of the right to demand a revaluation constitutes a denial of fair play and is unreasonable. When all safeguards against errors and malpractices have been provided for there cannot be said to be any denial of fair play to the examinees by reason of the prohibition against asking for revaluation." It was further held in this case that "It is in the public interest that the results of public examinations when published should have some finality attached to them. If inspection, verification in the presence of the candidates and revaluation are to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the relative ranking, etc. of the candidates, besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process".

In the case of University of Calcutta v. Dr. Ahindya Kumar Das 1992 (2) C.H.N. 339 it was held that a Court cannot enter into questions and answers and act as a head examiner of examinations held by an academic institution. A proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to be resorted to as a substitute for ordinary suits when investigation into disputed and complicated questions is necessary.

Regarding the submission made by Mr. A.P. Chatterjee, that at least the Court should call for the papers and direct scrutiny of the same, this Court is unable to concede to that prayer in view of the fact that it may have the result of upsetting the admission of candidates who had already been admitted after undergoing the admission test in the Joint Entrance Examination. In this connection, reference may again be made to the case of W.B. Board of Examination ( Supra) where it has been held that "We should not lose sight of the fact that in the instant case, the Joint Entrance Examination is an admission test and not a qualifying examination like the Secondary, Higher Secondary or Degree Examinations. There is, in our opinion, a good deal of difference between an admission test and a qualifying examination. Whereas in qualifying examination there may be provision for review or post-publication scrutiny, but in admission tests it is not feasible to provide for the same. On the basis of the result of the Joint Entrance Examination, a candidate will be admitted to the Engineering, Medical or Technological Degree Colleges, such admission will have to be made within a particular date. If after the admission test, review or post-publication scrutiny of answer scripts has to be made, it will be difficult, if not almost impossible, to complete the work of admission and consequently the academic sessions for the Degree courses cannot be started within the due date and completed within the prescribed period. The assessment of answer scripts and publication of the result of about 36,000 candidates will normally take more than a couple of months. The admission test, that is to say, the Joint Entrance Examination in the instant case, has to be held at a particular time of the year depending upon the date of holding of the qualifying examination which is the Higher Secondary Examination".

So upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case and the position of law in this matter this Court is not in a position to give any relief to the writ Petitioner in this writ application.

The writ application, accordingly stands dismissed without any order as to costs.