JUDGMENT
P.L.N. Sarma, J.
1. As all these writ petitions are inter-connected, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Entrance test for admission into Medical and Engineering colleges was held in the State of Andhra Pradesh in June, 1991 under Rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Engineering and Medical Common Entrance Test Rules, 1985. The .Above mentioned rules were issued in exercise of rule-making power under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (Act No. 5 of 1983).
3. The petitioners herein sought admission to the Medical and Engineering Colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh from the open competition – they do not belong to any of the reserved categories. The results were published on 26-6-1991. Except the petitioner in W.P.No. 10194 of 1991, none of the petitioners in other writ petitions could get admission. The petitioner in W.P.No. 10194 of 1991 is prosecuting the writ petition in the hope that if he improves his rank, it will entail him for admission into electronic branch of discipline of his choice. Following are the particulars of the petitioners, ranks they obtained in the Entrance test and the marks awarded to them:
S.No. Name W.P.No. Rank Marks
obtained.
Medicine:
1. A. Laxmi 9098/91 624 106 out of 150
2. V. Srilakshmi 9099/91 788 104 out of 150
3. P.V. Aparna 9100/91 756 104 out of 150
4. Mohd. Qutub M. Khan 9573/91 788 104 out of 150
5. Mohd. Altaf 12270/91 715 105 out of 150
6. K. Sudharani 11771/91 708 105 out of 150
Engineering:
1. S.S. Sudhakar 9084/91 3320 80 out of 150
2. Anil Kumar 10194/91 305 107 out of 150
4. In the first instance, the prayer in the writ petitins was for publication of key answers. Subsequently additional affidavits were filed taking the stand that several mistakes have crept in the process of decoding at the time when the papers were sent for valuation, totalling of marks was done wrongly and some of the valuers failed to obtain proper key answers at the time of valuation which has resulted in several candidates, including the petitioners, not getting the correct marks which ought to have been awarded to them.
5. The case of the petitioners, we must mention at the outset, could not be decided from the affidavits filed by them in the first instance; from stage to stage they started filing series of affidavits raising new points. At one stage, we had to tell the learned counsel for the petitioners that we will not allow the petitioners to come forward with any further affidavits raising new points. After the petitioners were permitted to peruse their papers, they were satisfied that there were no mistakes at all either in de-coding or in re-totalling. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners were, therefore, confined to the correctness of the key answers in respect of two questions in Physics, two questions in Chemistry and 11 questions in Biology. After specifically ascertaining the stand of the petitioners, the respondent’s counsel has filed a tabular form before us dealing with the objections raised by the petitioners in respect of each of the questions, the correct answers as found in the key answers and the reasons in support of the key answers.
6. It is the contention of Sri M. Ramarao, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the petitioners have answered the questions correctly and all of them have studied Intermediate standard text books and therefore, the answers written by them cannot be brushed aside.
7. In opposition to this, Sri R. Subhash Reddy, learned counsel for the Convenor, EAMCET submits that the key answers were prepared by a set of experts, academicians, after a good deal of deliberations and every answer found in the key should be assumed to be correct unless it is demonstrably shown to this Court that the answers are wrong. It is not open to this Court sitting in judgment over the academic wisdom of the examiners in finalising the answers found in the key. If by any argumentative process, either inferentially or suggestively, a particular answer is to be arrived at, it is not open to this Court to hold that mat particular answer must be treated as correct answer. In academic matters, this Court should show deference to the views of experts and should not embark upon an enquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the wisdom of the academicians. Even if some of the answers given by the petitioners, by the process of reasoning are to beheld as correct, since it was not the opinion of the experts, this Court should not give any direction that such answers should be treated as correct answers and the marks awarded for the same.
8. Following are the questions in respect of which the controversy in this batch of writ petitions arise:
S.No. Question from question paper
PHYSICS:
1. Siemens is the S.I unit for.............
2. A double convex lens of focal length 6 cm is made of glass
of refractive index 15. The radius of curvature of one
surface, which is double that of the other surface will be
...........cm.
CHEMISTRY:
1. The Rateof diffusion of heliumis..........the rate of diffusion
of methane.
2. Anaqueous solution of ferric chloride is acidic because of
BIOLOGY:
1. The high energy intermediate compound in the metabolic
break-down of carbohydrates, fatty acids and amino acids
2. Meristematic plant cells contain more of the following as
compared to mature parenchymatous cells
3. Hormones which have opposite effects:
4. Mixed blood is found in the following
5. Binomial nomenclature of plants was introduced by...........
6. The common dogfish scoliodon is an example of....... fish
7. All mutations are immediately expressed in haplpids,
because.........of each gene is present
8. A good example of substrate level phosphorylation in EMP
pathway is the chemical conversion of..........
9. In Krebs Cycle, FAD gets reduced instead of NAD, in the
conversion of:
10. Hypogeal development of fruit takes place in the genus.......
11. Pseudostratified columnar epithelium is found in......."
9. Before we consider the correctness or otherwise of the contentions raised in respect of each of the above questions, we deem it appropriate to advert to the legal position. What are the parameters within which the power of judicial review could be exercised when questions arise regarding the correctness or otherwise of the answers prepared by the examiners. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, the Supreme Court had to consider whether certain answers found in the key prepared by the examiners for the combined pre-medical test in Uttar Pradesh were correct or not. In the State of Uttar Pradesh, the papers set for the examinations related to ‘Multiple Choice Objective-type test’. The Allahabad High Court found that certain answers mentioned in the key were incorrect and that finding was arrived at with reference to the standard text-books which were prescribed by the University for Intermediate students and also certain other standard text-books. In the State of Uttar Pradesh for Intermediate course, standard books were prescribed. The key answers were published by the authorities in Uttar Pradesh along with the results, and the same constituted the foundation for arguments advanced. When the High Court ruled that certain answers found in the key were incorrect, the matter was carried in appeal by the Kanpur University to the Supreme Court. On behalf of the University/ it was contended that the Court should not entertain any argument relating to the correctness of the key answers unless, on the face of it, the same are shown to be wrong. Chief justice Chandrachud, speaking for the Court, ruled:
“We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. The contention of the University is falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged text-books, which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those text-books leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect.”
The learned Judges held in the said judgment that if it is a case of doubt, the answers found in the Key should prevail, but if the matter is found to be beyond the realm of doubt, that means to say, that the answer found in the key is demonstrably to be wrong, then alone the case of the students should be accepted. Merely because on the same set of facts the Court comes to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the authority, the decision of the authority cannot be termed as unreasonable. In order to characterize a decision as unreasonable, a finding must be recorded that it was “so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it. In such a case, again, I think the Court can interfere. The power of the Court to interfere in each case is not that of an appellate authority to over-ride a decision of the local authority, but is that of a judicial authority.0 (Held by Lord Green, MR.)., 1947 (2) All England Law Reports 680
10. In the light of the above statement of law, the questions raised in these writ petitions have to be decided.
11. We shall take up first the two questions in the discipline of Physics. Question No. 1 is: “Siemens is the S.I. unit for……….” (S.I. stands for System International). The student is required to fill the blank. According to the petitioners, ‘Conductance’ is the correct answer, whereas, according to the Convenor, the correct answer is ‘Electrical conductance’ as found in the Key.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the views of certain authors in certain text-books. In ‘Intermediate Physics’ published by ‘S. Chand & Company’ and authored by three Lecturers in Volume II at page 186, it says
“The reciprocal of the resistance (1 /B) is called the conductance of the material. Its S.I. unit is Siemen (S). Its demensional formula is (M-1L-2T 3 I2).”
In Mc Gram – Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology at page 310, the following passage occurs:
“The units of conductance, like those of admittance, are called Siemens of mhos. Conductance is a positive quantity……..”
A third-party affidavit by one Dr. T. Seshagirirao, Retired Professor of Physics is to the effect:
“‘conductance’ can be considered as correct answer. If any candidate writes this answer, he shall be awarded marks.”
13. As against the above submissions, Sri R. Subhash Reddy, learned counsel for the Convenor contends that there are three varieties of ‘Conductance’ thermal conductance, electrical conductance and electrolytic conductance. Siemens is the S.I. unit and it must be referred to only as ‘Electrical conductance’, but not to any other type of conductance. In support of this, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon Mc. Gram Hill Encyclopedia Science & Techology, Vol.3 at page 283, ‘Principles of Electrical Engineering’ book by B.R. Gupta, page No. 3, and ‘Encyclopedia of Physics, third edition 1987, page No. 1202 by Robert M, Besancm. The units, according to the learned counsel, should be considered with specific reference to one of the three conductances – thermal, electrical and electrolytic. The word ‘conductance’ claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioners occurs only in the chapters dealing with electrical energy. It must necessarily, therefore, be presumed that the expression ‘Conductance’ was used in those text-books in the context of electrical energy. The mere use of the expression ‘conductance’ cannot be considered to be the correct answer to the question “Siemens is the S.I. unit for……”. A Specific answer for Siemens is the S.I. unit for ‘Electrical conductance’ alone, in our view, is proper answer. Even if by a process of reasoning and inference, it could be stated that ‘Conductance’ also could be treated as correct answer, in view of the settled legal position as to the scope for interference in a matter like this, we cannot hold that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is well founded and that the answer found in the key is demonstrably wrong or unreasonable.
14. As regards the second question, it is conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent that no injustice was done to any candidate since the correct answer claimed by the petitioners and the one found in the key are one and the same.
15. Sofar as the two questions in the discipline Chemistry are concerned, no arguments are advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
16. In the discipline of Biology, the first question in the controversy is “The high energy intermediate compound in the metabolic break-down of carbohydrates, fatty acids and amino acids is……”. The answer found in the Key is ‘Acetyl COA’, whereas according to the petitioners, ‘Pyruvate’ also is a correct answer. In support of the plea of the petitioners, no passage from any text-book is produced before us. Inferentially the petitioners want us to hold that ‘Pyruvate’ also is correct answer, the reasoning being ‘Acetyl COA’ is not rich in energy and it functions only as enzymes and the only energy rich intermediate compound in the break-down of carbohydrates, fatty acids and amino acids is ‘Pyruvate’. The petitioners appear to have understood the question mistakenly. They are laying stress only on the high energy intermediate compund in the break-down of carbohydrates, whereas the question relates to high energy intermediate compound in the metabolic energy. Nowhere did we come across that ‘Pyruvate’ is one of the answers for the question. We cannot enter into an enquiry as to whether ‘Pyruvate’ also could be a correct answer. The petitioners are unable to say that the key answer is patently wrong.
17. The second question is: “Meristematic plant cells contain more of the following as compared to mature parenchyma to us cells. The multiple choice mentioned are (1) Water (2) Protein (3) Sugars and (4) Salts. The contention of the petitioners is that ‘Water’ is the correct answer, whereas the correct answer found in the key is ‘Protein’. The basis for the contention advanced by the petitioners is the following passage occurring in Introductory Plant Physiology by G. Ray Noggle & George J. Fritz at page 341,1986 edition.
“Every individual growing cell is surrounded by the impregnated with water. Water is the most abundant molecular species in actively growing plant cells.
In most cells and tissues of higher plants water constitutes more than 80% of the fresh weight. The water content of some growing cells may rise to 90% or more, but in dormant seeds and buds water content may be 10% or less.” The stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the emphasis in the question is about which of the compounds given in the multiple choice are found more in quantity in the meristematic plant cells, as compared to a matured parenchymetous cell, in support of which he cited Plant Physiology II Edition by R.G.S. Bidwell Collier Macmillan International Editions, 1979 at page 79. We cannot enter into a discussion as to which of the two views is correct. The fact remains that no authority was placed before us by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Key answer is palpably wrong.
18. The third question which relates to ‘Hormones’ and their effects was not pressed by the petitioners.
19. The fourth question is: “Mixed blood is found in the following:” The multiple choice given are (a) Innominate vein, (b) Common Pulmonary vein, (c) Mondibular vein and (d) Musculo-cutaneous vein. The correct answer, according to the petitioners, is ‘Common pulmonary vein’, whereas the Key answer is ‘Musculo-cutaneous vein’. The foundation for the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is a passage in the text-book of Zoology, Vol.11 by S.Chand & Company at page 85 which is to the effect that “the blood from the two lungs is returned by the right and left pulmonary veins, which unite to form a common pulmonary vein which opens into the left auricle.” The following passage in the text-book of Zoology, published by Vignan publishers, 1989 at page 129 is to the effect:
“The left auricle receives only mixed blood as lungs are not so efficient respiratory organs. The blook which comes into sinus venosus from the skin and buccal cavity is oxygenated while the blood that comes from other parts of the body is deoxygenated. So, the blood that enters the right auricle from the sinus venosus is mixed in nature.”
What is the effect of the above two statements, we cannot decide. from any text-book is placed before us to show that ,the key answer is demonstrably wrong. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent, in support of his plea that the key answer is the correct one, relied upon a passage in ‘Vikram text-book of Zoology’ at page 107 to the effect that common pulmonary vein collects oxygenated blood (pure blood) from lungs and empties it into left auricle and that musculo-cutaneous vein commonly collects blood from skin and muscles. The blood collected from the skin and passing through the cutaneous vein is pure, while the blood coming from muscles is impure. There being no authentic evidence demolishing the Key answer, we are not inclined to accept the petitioners contention. However, we must mention in this context that two of the writ petitioners -petitioners in W.P.Nos. 9573 of 1991 and 9098 of 1991 have written correct answer as found in the Key.
20. Question No. 5 was not pressed. Question No. 6 is: “The common dogfish Scoliodon is an example of……fish.” The key answer is ‘Cartilagenous/ Elasmobranch/Viviparous Chrondhthys’. The correct answer as claimed by the petitioners is ‘Uretellic’.
21. It is the contention of the counsel for the respondent that the petitioners have not understood the question in its correct perspective. The question is with regard to common dogfish Scoliodon, while the petitioners imagined the question as ‘dogfish’. We agree. The answer suggested on behalf of the writ petitioners that it should be ‘Ureotelic’ represents the condition, while the question stresses mainly on the genus acoliodon for its skeletal nature. The basis of the classification is on the nature of skeletal systems. It is not shown by the petitioners that this explanation is incorrect nor the petitioners are able to establish authentically mat the answer found in the key is wrong.
22. Question No. 7 is: “All mutations are immediately expressed in haploids, because……..of each gene is present”. The key answer for this ‘one/single allele’. The petitioners’ contention is that ‘allele’ alone is the correctanswer. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the expression ‘allele’ being singular and when the plural form ‘alleles’ is available, there is no meaning in insistingupon that the answer is one altele or single allele. Countering this, the learned counsel for the respondent insisted that the word ‘allele’ invariably conveys pair and the expression ‘alleles’ implies plurality of pairs. When the required answer is that one ‘allele’ is present, it must be expressed specifically by writing ‘one allele’ or ‘single allele’. The mere mention of ‘allele’ cannot be construed to be the correct answer as it indicates a pair.
23. We felt some considerable difficulty in deciding this question. The word ‘allele’ no doubt is singular and its plural is ‘alleles’. It is stated on behalf of the respondent that in a ‘diploid’, each character is controlled by a pair of genes, They are responsible for production of contrasting characters, while in ‘haploid’, where only one set of chromosomes are present, only one allele is responsible for a single character. One allele is responsible for mutation in -haploid Therefore, in the context of the question, “single or one allele” should be the correct answer. Many candidates seem to have understood the scope o question correctly and wrote the answer mentioned in the key. Several answer scripts containing the correct answer have been shown to us by the learned counsel for the respondent.
24. As regards the questions 8 and 9, the answers claimed by the petitioners also are the answers found in the key and as they were awarded marks, and therefore, no controversy arises in that regard.
25. Question No. 10 is: “Hypogeal development of fruit takes place in the genus…..”. The answer found in the key is ‘Arachis’, whereas the petitioners claimed that besides ‘Arachis’, the following three also are the correct answers. (l)Commelina(2)Magnaferaand(3)Zea. ‘Arachis’ means groundnut. Whether the alternative answers suggested by the petitioners also are correct besides ‘Arachis’, has not been authentically established before us. The suggested answers Commelina and Magnafera, prima facie, appear to be incorrect. In’ respect of Commeiina species, the leaves grow spreading pver the soils and the flowers are formed in the axils of leaves. The development of fruit takes place outside the soil. In regard to ‘Magnafera’ (mango fruits belonging to genus Magnifera) and maize (belonging to the genus Zea) do not grow beneath the soil. We, therefore, find it impossible to agree with the petitioners’ contention that besides ‘Arachis’ the three other “answers suggested by them also are correct.
26. The last question in controversy is Question No. 11 which reads: “Pseudostratified columnar eithelium is found in……”. The correct answers are four as mentioned in the Key and they are – (1) Trachea, (2) Nasal, (3) Genital and (4) Olfactory. The answers claimed by the petitioners are: (1) Urinal duct, (2) Genital duct, (3) Olfactory duct and (4) Nasal cavity.
27. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is nothing like Pesudostratified Columnar epithelium. There are two types of epithelium – (1) Pseudostratified epithelium and (2) columnar epithelium and Jumbling both the epitheliums, the question was framed.
28. Opposing this, the learned counsel for the respondent says that Urinal duct, which is also claimed by the petitioners to be the correct answer, does not contain stratified epithelium. Whether it is Pseudostratified epithelium or columnar epithelium, urinal-duct cannot be the correct answer. In support of this, he places reliance on a text-book ‘Chordate Zoology by Dhami & Dhami at page 131.
The Urinal duct, not being a gland, the counsel contends, it can never be a correct answer.
29. In Vignan’s Zoology, Revised Edition 1989 at page 302, Pseudostratified epithelium is described as follows: “Pseudo stratified epithelium
1. The cells in this epithelium are arranged in a single layer.
2. The cells constituting the layer are of irregular sizes.
3. The nuclei in the cells are arranged at different levels. This gives an impression that the cells are arranged in more than one layer. Hence, it is referred to as pseudostratified epithelium.
4. The trachea, urinary ducts and genital ducts show this kind of epithelium.”
At page 304 of the same book ‘Columnar epithelium’ was described as:
“C. Columnar epithelium
1. It is formed by tall cells situated side by side like pillars.
2. The nucleus is oval and elongated in the cells.
3. The free surface of columnar cells may show cilia. Eg: fallopian tube. This epithelium lines the digestive tract and possesses mucous and other glands.
4. It has an absorptive and/or secretary function.”
We may straight-away say that columnar epithelium has nothing to do with urinal duct. In Vikram’s Modern Zoology at page 253, Pseudo stratified epithelium is described and Columnur epithelium is described at page 254 and they do not refer to urinat duct and therefore, we need not advert to that. It is true that Vikram’s text-book of Zoology says that the epithelium of the urinary ducts and genital ducts belong to the category of Pseudo stratified epithelium. But we have serious misgivings about this and its correctness. Urinary duct not being a gland, it is difficult to believe that it belongs to Pseudo stratified epithelium category. It is not shown that the answer found in the key is demonstrably wrong. When there are two conflicting versions.in two different text-books, we cannot sit in Judgment as to which one of them is correct in the absence of authentic evidence that one of the two is demonstrably wrong. We, therefore, are not inclined to uphold the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
30. It is not in dispute that the standard of excellance expected from the students appearing for the EAMCET is that of Intermediate. Unfortunately, neither for Intermediate cpurse nor for the EAMCET test any text-books were prescribed. We asked repeatedly the learned Government Pleader to ascertain from the concerned authorities as to whether any text-books were prescribed for the Intermediate course in the State and she informed us after contacting the concerned officials that the Board of Intermediate has not prescribed any textbooks. This has resulted in a very chaotic situation. Several text-books are in circulation, the author of each book is claiming that it is of Intermediate standard. Whatever books suggested by their lecturers, the students are following, with the result the students are not certain as to the correctness or otherwise of what is contained in the text-books followed by them. The same is the case with regard to the entrance test – EAMCET. Rule 4 of the A.P. Engineering and Medical Common Entrance Test Rules, 1985 says that the standard of the test shall be Intermediate examination conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education established by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the respective subjects. As there are no prescribed text-books for Intermediate course, the students appearing for the EAMCET, like those who appeared for the Intermediate examination, are following the text-books suggested by their lecturers. This situation is leading to considerable confusion and inconvenience; no information is readily available as to what is the correct answer for any question. This unfortunate situation could have been avoided if only the Board of Intermediate Education had prescribed text-books for the Intermeditate examination and those text-books will necessarily be treated as standard text books for the EAMCET examination. We do not know the reasons that prompted the Board of Intermediate Education not to prescribe any text-books. Although the Board of Intermediate is not a party to these proceedings, the situation is hot without any remedy. The State Government, a party to these proceedings, has undoubted power to issue directions to the Board of Intermediate Education under Section 9 of the A.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1971. We, therefore, direct that with effect from the academic year 1992-93, the State Government shall direct the A.P. Board of Intermediate Education to I prescribe text-books for the Intermediate course and the classes in the Intermediate course anywhere in the State shall not commence unless the textbooks are prescribed.
31. Subject to the above direction, all the writ petitions fail and accordingly they are dismissed. No order as to costs. Advocate’s fee Rs. 250/- in each.