AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Swatanter Kumar, J.—How far reaching are the consequences of errors or mistakes, howsoever small, bonafide or intentional, in a competitive entrance test, can be seen crystal clear on record of this case. It is a known fact that in no academic course, much less professional courses, an eligible candidate gets admission without taking entrance test. Such entrance tests are highly competitive and even variation by .05 marks can alterthe rank of a candidate by 100 or its multiples. Where holding of highly competitive entrance tests is fully justifiable in law, there it is of essence that such tests are held in a fair and flawless manner to avoid prejudice to the candidates. Comparative merit does not infer comparative fairness. It demands absolute perfection in the procedure for taking examination, checking of papers and declaration of results. Simple human or computer errors may vest the candidates with civil consequences of divesting their right of admission to a particular course, which they would have got on their own merit, but for such a mistake.
Vikas Sharma and 23 other petitioners have filed civil writ petition No. 9819 of 2001 under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the result of Common Engineering Entrance Test-2001 (hereinafter referred to as CEET-2001), which was held on 16th of June, 2001. Similar prayer has been made by petitioner Mansvi in civil writ petition No. 10301 of 2001. As both the writ petitions are founded on common facts and relate to same questions of law, we consider it appropriate to dispose of both these writ petitions by this common judgment.
The petitioners passed out their 10+2 examination from different schools in Haryana and Delhi. Being eligible for the admission and desirous of pursuing various degree courses in Engineering and Architecture, they submitted their applications. Guru Jambheshwar University, Hisar, had been authorised to make admission in Government, Government aided and private Engineering Institutions in the State of Haryana vide letter dated 14.2.2001 issued by State. As per the information brochure published for the CEET-2001, all the petitioners were eligible. The entrance test was to be held in 12 cities, where more than 100 centres were set up for holding of the said entrance test. Entrance test was held on 16.6.2001 and approximately 30,000 students appeared in this examination, and out of them admission was to be provided to only 700 students in different courses. The result of this entrance test was declared on 29.6.2001 and all the petitioners were ranked 1474 and above. According to the petitioners the answer sheets were wrongly printed; these contained wrong questions and/or answers. The question paper was not in conformity with the specimen provided in the brochure. The answer sheets have not been properly fed to the computer against proper keys. The delay on the part of the authorities in taking appropriate steps/decisions in time caused serious prejudice to the candidates and they were totally made nervous in the examination centres. In some centres, certain kind of information was circulated in connection with granting extra 10 minutes time and the manner in which the questions should be answered by the candidates on the answer sheets, while in other centres no such information was circulated. Even where it was circulated, extra 10 minutes or proper time was not granted to the candidates fo complete their papers. Addition or subtraction of three marks would alter the complete merit and has prejudicially and unfairly affected the complete career of the petitioners.
Upon notice, the respondents filed reply. It was stated that there were some mistakes, but as additional marks had been granted and at some places the requisite marks were deleted, this was done after due consideration by the competent authority. The decision was squarely made applicable uniformly to the candidates and as such no candidate has got advantage over the other. It is further stated that as the petitioners have participated and taken the examination and have filed the present writ petition after the result was declared, resullantly, the petitioners are estopped from challenging the correctness of the same result.
At this stage it will be appropriate to refer to the undisputed circumstances which emerge from the record before us in order to examine their specific effect on the entire entrance test and particularly to the rights of the petitioners.
The brochure declaring the eligibility criteria for the entrance test, the sample of questions booklet along with specimen answer-sheet was published in February, 2001. The entrance test was to be held on 16.6.2001. Last date for submission of application forms was 28.5.2001 and result of the entrance test was to be declared on 30.6.2001. Admission forms, of course, were to be submitted on 16.7.2001. Date of counselling was to be scheduled on 30.7.2001 and last date for admission is 30.9.2001. All these dates were published in the brochure, which, obviously, was taken by each candidate.
In accordance with the above published schedule, the entrance test was held on 16.6.2001. The sealed question booklets along with answer-sheets were given to the students at 10.00 A.M. on that date. After opening the booklets the petitioners as well as the other students noticed glaring errors/mistakes in the question paper and they raised lot of protest. According to the petitioners, which now by the large has even been admitted by the respondents, the following were the glaring mistakes in the sealed booklets supplied to the candidates :-
(a) The question booklet contained 60 questions in each section of mathematics, physics and chemistry, but the answer-sheet contained running answers numbers from 1 to 180. Thus, it was not clear to the candidates, which of the section was to be attempted first, which second and which one the last. Under this impression, the candidates were not able to attempt the questions fairly within the prescribed time.
The respondents admit this mistake. However, the stand taken is that the question booklet and answer-sheet made it clear that the students had to attempt the questions section-wise in continuous serial number. Further, clarification was issued in the centres by the Superintendent of the respective centre, informing the candidates that the questions of physics should be taken from serial number 61 to 120 and that of chemistry from 121 to 180.
The stand taken by the respondents is not consistent and in fact to some extent is self-contradictory. If the matter was so clear in terms of the brochure or the question booklet, read with the prescribed answer sheet, then where was the occasion for the respondents to issue the so called clarification? According to the respondents this clarification had been issued only in some of the centres and not in all. A copy of the typed intimation alleged to have been issued by the Superintendent of the Examination Hall has been placed on record, but not in regard to all the centres, which are admittedly more than 100. The said clarification reads as under :-
"On 16-06-2001, the Common Engineering Entrance Test (CEET)-2001 was held in our institute. During the examination, on the instructions from the City Manager, the serial number of question Nos. of Physics were got changed from 61 to 120 and of Chemistry from 121 to 180 for all the students. For this, additional ten minutes time was given to all the students."
A bare reading of the above clarification shows that the students had raised a grievance in regard to the serial numbers prescribed in the question booklet and the answer sheet. On this it was conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the University that the matter was taken up on the complaints from different centres by the Vice Chancellor and thereafter it was decided to issue the above clarification giving 10 minutes extra to the students for this error. If it was not an error then why the students should have given 10 minutes extra time to attempt the questions. The mistake on the part of the agency which printed the booklets was so obvious that a decision had to be taken for giving extra time. It is impossible to believe that more than 100 centres located in 12 cities had made complaints first, consultations could take place and then decisions could be taken and communicated to these centres within a limited period of 10 minutes. Unless this was clarified beyond doubt, in all probability the students could not attempt the questions and run the risk of ticking a wrong answer. The negative marking was also on the mind of the students.
Com ing to the merits of the stand taken by the respondents, we are not impressed with this stand. In the brochure under the head "B-VI(v) Instructions for Question Booklet" it was specifically stated that the Question Booklet has 180 questions 60 in Mathematics, 60 in Physics and 60 in Chemistry). The specimen of the answer sheet was enclosed to the brochure under the head "B-V1I Instructions For Answer Sheet". The specimen had 180 running questions. The specimen answer sheet does not indicate as to which 60 questions relate to which subject. On the contrary the syllabi provided in the brochure for each subject is neither in the manner in which the learned counsel for the respondents has put forward, nor the same is in conformity with the subject specified at the opening page of the question booklet, in the brochure syllabi for Chemistry, 60 marks have been provided first, the syllabi for Physics (60 marks and lastly syllabi for Mathematics (60 marks) has been provided. However, on the answer sheet it is specified "Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry". These documents clearly show that there was a definite confusion prevailing in the examination halls in this regard. The clarification issued by the respondents itself supports the case of the petitioners to some extent.
The above discussion shows that the student had suffered a serious prejudice in their attempt in taking the said examination/test fairly. This aspect of tbe matter alone itself may not be sufficient for taking the view that we are taking, but once it is seen in the background of the other errors committed by the respondents or their agencies, and in order to maintain the sanctity and fairness of such competitive entrance tests, taking of such a view is imperative for us.
(b) Three questions in the question booklet were provided with incorrect answers. It was so in all the series of booklets i.e. ''A'' to ''D''.
Number of errors and mistakes have been brought to our notice during the course of hearing which are clear even from the record produced by the respondents themselves. For example in the question booklet of ''A'' series, the following glaring mistakes have been brought to our notice, which have not been disputed by the respondents, though some explanation has been rendered on record :-
13 Question No. 1 of this question booklet provided four answers, out of which (b) and (d) both are correct answers, but on the answer sheet the candidates could mark only one answer i.e.. (b) or (d). If the candidates mark both, they will get negative mark. If they mark one of them, but the key fed to the computer reads the other, again the candidates would be losers and also face negative marks.
Question No. 29 in Mathematics Section and questions No. 47 and 60 in Physics Section have been wrongly printed in the question booklet. Instead of printing four answers (a), (b), (c) and (d), one alphabet out of these four alphabets has been printed doubly, thus, ignoring the other alphabet completely from the four answers provided to each of the question in the booklet. The effect is that a candidate even if knew the correct answer, he could not tick the same as it was not even printed in the booklet. Question No. 29 stated :-
The greatest value of sin0+cos0 is
(a)1 (c)2
(b)0 (d)-1
If the answer to this question was (d) the candidates obviously could not have tick marked the same despite the fact that they knew correct answer to the question.
Another mistake that has occurred is that to some questions like Question No. 46 of Chemistry Section, the answer was sigma which was not printed in any of the answers. This is conceded by the respondents.
The only justification given by the respondents is that subsequent to the examination, the Vice Chancellor and other concerned authorities had taken a decision to deduct 1 mark and for other mistakes 3 marks were ordered to be added or 3 questions to be ignored, thus, making total marks as 177.
The examination was held on 16,6.2001 and the result, as already noticed, was declared on 29.6.2001 instead of 30.6.2001, the date fixed in the brochure for declaring the result. The decision taken by the Vice Chancellor has adifferent story to say and is not in conformity with the arguments raised during the course of hearing. The minutes of the Vice Chancellor''s meeting and the decision taken is placed on record as Annexure R-2/2. The relevant extract of the said minutes read as under :-
"...Therefore, the question papers received from the Confidential Printer duly sealed were opened only in the Examination Centres. Immediately after opening of the question papers at 10.00 a.m. at Examination Centres, a query was received about the printing of the continuous numbering of the question paper. It was decided that the numbering of the question paper would be treated as continuous from 1 to 180 in the order of Maths, Physics and Chemistry as was printed in the front page of the question paper and the announcement to this effect was ensured immediately and additional 10 minutes time was given to the students to compensate this time Toss for correcting the serial number of the question paper.
The Vice-Chancellor also apprised the committee that three letters received from the candidates, Invigilators and Flying-squad pointing out discrepancies in some questions in the question booklet. The Committee noted that the following discrepancies were pointed out in the above letters."
The above recorded minutes clearly show that there were serious discrepancies in each of the answer booklets and various candidates are bound to suffer in their order of merit in different ways. Ignoring three questions is hardly a decision which could solve the problem and give deserved advantage to a student. If he had attempted questions right why his three marks should be reduced and if the discrepancies were admittedly there, no explanation has come on record why the University could not hold fresh examination.
Another aspect of the matter is as to what was the University doing for a period of 10 days i.e. from 16.6.2001, when the discrepancies were admittedly noticed, till 26.6.2001. The attention of all concerned had already been invited to the discrepancies and other incidental matters, which disrupted the holding of a proper examination on 16.6.2001.
In the present day education is not only expensive but is very highly competitive. The above discrepancies have certainly offended the principles of fairness in holding such examinations and have caused serious prejudice to the interests of the candidates. The discrepancies afore-referred would deny reflection of merit in this competitive examination. The respondents have violated the terms and conditions of the brochure and have even not supplied the question/answer booklets to the candidates as per the specimen provided in the brochure.
As already noticed, another patent error is that even the clarification issued by the respondents was not complete and it only added to the confusion already existing amongst the candidates. The candidates who had already attempted questions in a particular manner, had to alter their trend and sequence of answering the questions. The re-examination/entrance test would no way prejudice any candidate, as the person of merit always maintain his academic superiority over others.
Notice of this petition was issued by the Court on 12.7.2001 and vide order dated 25.7.2001 the Court had stayed the counselling in furtherance to the competitive entrance test. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has brought to our notice that all the candidates were informed of the present proceedings and the stay granted by the Court on the day which was earlier fixed for counselling i.e. 30.9.2001. Despite that no candidate, successful in the test or otherwise, has appeared to oppose this petition,
It is a settled principle of law that the terms and conditions declared in the brochure by the competent exam in ing authority are bind ing and are enforceable in law. Such conditions can be waived only by the concerned authority, that too at the appropriate time and upon due notice. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amardeep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1993 (4) STC 328 : 1993 (4) SLR 673, clearly stipulated this proposition of law and left no iota of doubt as regards to the legal concept and enforceability of terms and conditions and requirement of such adherence thereto. Not only this, the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of State of Ut-tar Prmlesh and Ors. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta etc. 1992(2) SCT 292 : JT 1992 (4) S.C. 422, while holding that securing of minimum 50% marks in the entrance test as a condition precedent, clearly observed that admission to the candidates getting below 50% marks could not be given and the solitary schemes should not be permitted to be outweighed by the sympathy in the larger public interest. In other words, what had been stated in the brochure ought to have been strictly adhered to by the respondents and they could not make any variation or mistakes in complete contradiction to the terms of the brochure. If the respondents acted contrary to such terms or committed errors, as noticed in this judgment, the students cannot be permitted to suffer on that score. Determination of merit is not for the sake of an intrinsic value, but it is intended to pick up the best actually. In other words merit must prevail and should not be permitted to be undermined as a result of comedy of errors committed by the respondents.
The respondents tried to justify their stands by arguing that the petitioners have participated in the entrance test and are now trying to take advantage because most of them have not come in the merit list. This argument again is without any substance. The above noting of the Vice Chancellor itself shows that protests were raised from all concerned quarters including the petitioners and their parents right from the very first available opportunity. The events that have happened relate to the entrance test itself. They could be known only after the petitioners had participated in the entrance test.
This is not a case where the Court would apply the principle of estoppel by acquiescence keeping in view the fact that all the mistakes and errors lie on the part of the respondents. The petitioners cannot be permitted to suffer for the mistakes of the respondents. The respondents must take moral and legal obligation for these erroneous mistakes which have resulted in denial of fair play in the entrance test. One mark or even a part thereof can alter the merit by number of ranks of a candidate. The students who take such entrance tests are under great pressure as their entire career would depend upon the result of such tests. They would normally attempt the paper in all seriousness and to the best of their capability. But, if their mind is disturbed, as has been done in the present case, the performance of each student would be seriously affected.
At this stage we may refer to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Tulasi Priya Vs. A.P. State Council of Higher Education and Others, . The Hon''ble Apex Court in that case while dealing with somewhat similar situation, where wrong answer sheets had been supplied and then changed, held as under :-
"It is unrealistic to expect a young and, no doubt, nervous student in the midst of an important examination to think of submitting written protests there and then. The refusal of the High Court to interfere on this ground has, regrettably, compounded the injustice done to the appellant. As for the ground of disputed questions of fact, all that the High Court needed to see was the wrong answer-paper first given to the appellant. The number of questions that she had marked thereon would have indicated whether she was right when she said that she had worked on it for about 20 minutes. If this answer-paper could not be produced even at that stage, the High Court should have drawn the appropriate adverse inference against the authorities."
The respondents have hardly been able to justify before us that it was an examination which was fairly conducted and result declared in consonance with the rule of merit. We are of the considered view that the students at large have suffered serious prejudice in regard to their performance in the competitive test. Cumulative effect of the various mistakes and errors committed by the respondents and the circumstances leading to the disturbance of mental equilibrium of the students during the examination are the causes sufficient for cancelling the competitive entrance test held on 16.6.2001. We do hope that such errors would not be repeated in future to protect admission on merits and in consonance with the principles of fairness.
For the reasons aforestated, we have no hesitation in issuing writ, order and direction in cancelling the examination/entrance test conducted for the 4/5 Year B.Tech. B.E. Engineering/Technology/Architecture Courses on 16.6.2001 and setting aside the result declared by the respondents on 29.6.2001. Thus, we set aside the same and direct the respondents to hold the competitive entrance test, of only those candidates who had earl ier appeared in CEET-2001, on 26th of August, 2001, declare the result thereof on 3Ist of August, 2001, start counselling from 5th of September, 2001 and grant admission to the students strictly on merit and as per the terms and conditions of the brochure. The respondents shall publish the date of entrance test, the date of declaration of the result and the dates of counselling in the widely circulated leading news papers, more particularly of northern India, to provide due information to all the candidates. The rank number and the marks obtained in merit by the students shall be published as well as put on the Notice Board of the University on 31 st of August, 2001 itself or immediately thereafter.
The last date given in the brochure for admission is 30th of September, 2001. We have given the above directions to ensure that the courses commence on time and in any case much before 30th of September, 2001.
Consequently, both the writ petitions are allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Petitions allowed.