THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AsHoKIB;DN HIN.cHiNGEi{1fQf
Clw writ Petition !\_l9,3g1g _o!' 2on3,
SR1 ABHIJIT R;HON_AGGi3.1_J I I
S/'O SR1 H.§.fiA:viAms§A I I
AGED ABOUT--25 YEA ~~ _
R/AT JZD 11.04, JUDGES Iqualmezns, D
NA'l'IONALGA3VlES VMAGE I. I
KORAMANGALA, *
BANGALORE 35. ~ I
' PETITIONER
. 4' _ IE5"! em. NAIK.----sR. ADVOCATE FOR LAW ASSOCIATES)
IJI;AI" u a
ma) IeAnb§§1I~umNERsm or
nLn|. In .3 .-E"u'C'~'$,
*KARNATA.KAéV4""' T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
" 'REPRESENTED av ITS REGISTRAR.
Rtsvuuutfll
(BY SR1 N K RAMESH, ADVOCATE)
I THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
_ I"".I().IlI'?IITHE cousmunon or INDIA PRAYING T0 QUASH THE RESULT
oecmaeo av me nesvonoem, AS coumneo m mm-:xune--r=
AND ETC.
NI
nun. n_a.I.|.:..._ u._. !"l1Q .3 man:
L1£LElI
BETWEEN'
DR. SARA HARODN
D/0 LATE HARooN HASAN,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R!AT.N0.166. N.I1.C.S.LAYOUT,
3"" STAGE, 4"" BLOCK,
DAsAwEsH.wAR.AnAeAR,.
BANGALORE-79.
(av SR1 ARANDA K.' ADMJCATE)
AND A A R.
THE RAIN GANDHILINEVERSITY .j :
DE
4'"'rBLocKJAYAMAGAR,_ _ A
BANGALORE-41., A .. A '
BY ITS REGISTRAR. A
A A ("E'S'if£:'-:l§I .51-"fl--.':F.'AHESH. ADvocATE)
THIs WRIT PE'i'I1'i¢5I€»":I§.»R.?'I5IV.I.ED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
or THE consmunom or IRDIA PRAYING T0 QUASH THE RESULTS
BY THE' RESPONDENT AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-E AND
….. ..
‘SR1 SHNAFJANDA MANOHARJ
A «.12»-2*ARE_s;’o. sR1 VJADAI SWAHY
A A A.GEDEAaom 27__YEARS
RlAT.,N(‘£-.675, 15′ FLOOR,
._’KUGUBANDE ROAD, E & F BLOCK
% KUV;’EMPU NAGAR, MYSORE – 570023.
PETITIONER
{BY 5!?! Mi?” .. .I!(,– 5!; A QFATE FDR. Mia:-= AS-$QQ1_A.’!’E§)
Harv wt’: – -.,
AND
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
KARNATAKA 47″ T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE ~ 560041.
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR; I I
(av sru N K Ranestj, Aus.«oc.m’;I _
ms wnrr PETITION IS FILEI$”{INDERIIFi1TCLES 226 AND 227
OF THE C\’}a’u’S’5’i”¥’u’i’E\’}fl OF» Il’I’fiII.\’Pl’:-if-|V’I’§Ii(‘?.”T. T6 QW-‘”\Si’i” THE fiSUi_T
DECLARE!) BY THE , IN ANX-F AND ETC.
BETWEEN ‘
DR. K.B. GEETHA > ,’
Mo on MANJU..PRAKASH « I
AGeAaoLri’43v;:¢xns
RESIDINGE AT_No.6£3{1., 4?” seam!
57″ 09.0-SS’, C§!A!*E!|.R.5.~!PET ”
BANGALORE 7 550 018
(B? 5’35. 52% E{‘fiAu’-u’R6Z “-‘Tait’, r”\I’3’\fi’If’..F\T’I3)
~ V’\i’Ii.’;;a?;”*:T’;iiiE$’iiisEiELLf1I'<
rquiv GANDMUNNERSIW OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4""'~'.T' amm, JAVANAGAR
BANGALQRE – 550 041
I [f G22';-. W-'lE…REvGISTRAR!EVALUAT10fl]
' GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
-1″” ‘T’ BLOCK,
” EANGALORE – 550 041
I I . I 73. THE DIRECTOR
MEDICAL Em.’C.’=’.’E’I0″ “‘E”‘””””””””””
II
ANAND I’-‘(A0 CIRCLE
BANGALORE — 560 009
(BY SR1 N.K.
sn
l-Ill
Mensa. ea; ‘
THIS wan !=1Ir=n Ill’-.|DE . Anni’?-== €25′ ‘F THE
—n—iv \’I I ru ‘1! Amount)
CONSTITUTION OF I DIA PRAYING I THE PROVISIONAL
MARK SHEET OF ExrA’u”III~r’\.r.Es.’}I’I1 F ENIWANCE
CONDUCTED BY FIRST RE PONDENT:.VIflE’.Ai’5EXURE-E PGET 2008;
ET!’
AIIU I: I\..-.
!’I’l
IN TH ‘SE PETE”
v:1*ns.seeiJnEE”?r: amen Hanan, RESERVED
roe onoens on; e
I
P’rEGi’v””u’iviCEi’) THE._FO§ei;GWING: _V __ _A
As i:i__1e*and law invoived in these four
petitions areIlsubstentiaiiyifislérniiar, they are clubbed, heard
together: ‘end are being disposed of by t..£s common order.
‘ .:.V’2.— _ facts of the cases are that the petitioners
apoeaired foruth_e..:’Post Graduate Entrance Test for admission to
‘i~..___M.edIcal ‘a.ndg_Dental coursg for the ecedem… year 2908:2099.
« E*VTExa-gminetlon is of muitipte-choice type requiring: the
._”cendtdEate to choose one response out of four alternatives. The
,_ O “notice! Mark Reader (‘O.M.R.’ for short) answer sheet Is required
to be marked in black or blue ballpoint pen; a copy of the O.M.R.
O « it .i.%.r nssaonnenfs or f
RAMESH. Aovoceretreri as-Arid 2;”
rm L?RQNOUNcE’M_ENTfE’HIS BAY, THE count
answer sheet is retained by the candidate. Each quezstiorifiirries
one mark. For marking one response correctiygjtheeiifcisrididatet__’
would be awarded one mark. The Iqu’esti’on”.4:pa:oer91acairriieed 3.
‘questions. There is no negative mariéindn-‘for choosi-no
the :insvirérsrv5%s,nd’7:’fountiijiiai: hewhas answered 154 questions
correctly!» fie Vwas1″‘.therefo’r’e«anticipating to get 154 marks.
“However, when_:’the’.’- respondent announced the results, the
;j’:’Vpetttioneryhad ..secure”d”‘1V53 marks. Aoorieved by the denial of
‘one’ vssnetltioner sought retotailing and verification of
III! I I3! IGIII-G III-I II “E,
ii
web site, she found that she has answered 160i-V
correctly. However when the respondent announced
o.M.R. answer sheet. “But on retoteiiino ‘ends-Vxefifita ‘ it
there was no change In the*marks.'”The}/’stood etV1*59.:
I’D’
5. The case e. hev-petitioner 1
2008 is that on 1:;he{*:fki.hg,v:the.. ‘eferer*e te the he;
answers nvotiflleclzort:”theV”weh’V’slite.”he Vfgoulnd that he had answered
148 questions kl-‘|e.___was therefore hoping to ad 148
marks. To that he had secured only 139
_marks_; when .Vth»e_V_V’res_piondent announced the results. on
nleeesserifisetlen, the respondent University gave him
142 ‘r-r1eri<e."–~.g'§§5tetihfi th-t he is 'titled he 14% seems as eeeies.
the revised '1-ezhmarks, this petition is filed.
on
in
l="!
II
ILD
in
of the petitioner in writ petition No.3379 of
'*~26"38 is that when she checked ..er re.-….s in th_ I¥;8.!.'!1.!!'!I.I.t!|_3.l!- in
pukquestlon with reference to the revis'd "ey i"'5Wii_'S hwheu-' en
the web site, she found that she had answered 161 uestioes
l'I.1"'5nI
O
1|
correctly. However, the respondent University ”
results awarding only 98 marks. She therefore ”
retotailing and revaiuation. It is.’ “her. g’rieyvenVce__Vtna’t the T.
Sri M.R. Naikgthe iearnes-sensor connsei for W5.
7
Law Associates appearing_…for’«.tr.ie ;i;etitiors§a§~s7′ in writ petitions
:3
LI.)
o. 395 oi’ zees taasyirazéiei’ .zG9′”——VV”–rned Hm en—em
contentions: 1 ..
(I) = benefit’-»—proflciency of the petitioners is
nmvl nuigl-Ihur dates-:!r.s4′!.’ 1-‘ . –
IIIIJIQ gag’ iglflll
EU’ ‘B I
(mi… petitioinershave marked only one response. There
marking at all. without prejudice to this
contention, Sr! Naik submitted that ev-n gnrning that
have happened in the course of machine reading or
handling by the personnel in charge of conducting the
examination;
FIRM
(ill)
(Iv)
(v)
when the petitioners are not responsible fo.r1″the7$econd
marking, doubting the proficiency of
answering the questions correctly, is §not_:VwfaVrrented;
when retotailing and re’v.g_iuati’tm_dis sotagtrtpthe
papers are not fed lnto%i_:i1eygvmacblnef they are
manually checke:f:l_.,”‘jg~– t.lje.candidates’ answers
being correct ory.,.in¢arrect;_ ascertained by
an-nan g V
very sensitive to any
_p,ressure;’7afny’i impression of marking on the 0.M.R.
t mtlected in its carbonless
answer’ 9
ef’~mayrking two responses in the carboniess duplicate
aniswgerA’.sheet, it cannot be there on the O.M.R. answer
.s’n_eet””also.
“it
It more than one answer is marked, the féfiiifififiéfif
University construes the same as malpractice. But In
the Instant cases, marking two alternatives is treated as
a wrong answer only. It is Sri News contention that It
HBH.
Is no answer for the University to has
been considerate for it could have treated: ‘a
malpractice. He relied upon’ ij’udgri1ent1*i$E’on*blei.
Supreme Court in the case HIQDUSXAE
conroeimon no. v.mu:. enA?o%Rl’iciriiErero Ares
OTHERS reportedin 2005 4598.
Ma) en Neil: sL-m!-,ed.:’_t7h._t.. can also be e
object,’ rrietter * .oi’, ‘jtid_ici.ai” ”*-*V
In:
E
:3
“B
1:
lb
:3
-I:
go
at
2:
an
-2
deci:Sion7,.” gu;Jheti1er’V’Tecirnin’istrf;ative, judicial, ouisi-j’uo’iciai
reviewabie. He sought to
dlreui . the judgment of the Hon’ble
supremeiikrcoun» In the case of menu unwnv
coumnv unrnso. v. AJAY
d vvfit£.f£.?-iareported in rzeeeye sec 5:19;
(urlifi) Court can correct the examination body’s decision.
In su oort of his argument Sri Naik relied on the
__’. ‘.
gments .. the i-!on’b.!e supreme court in the cases of
ura”‘”””” ‘—–err WW-
10
omens reported In (1oa3)4 scc 3qg;%Lor%dtauetoa,tv
CHI-IANDA v. cnamnau, JEE Auoomansrsponee
an sees an scw son jand”o«f._lrtBli$§fl_tr;~.i9EAlI;’
6G’v”u’:RH’-‘:Eu’€’l’ u’¢’.E.’}I£A.’.. ‘.’.’£.’§;.!,.eE,V’v_*F’..’.v!!.;#.!€=§.a..Aii’.!.5
‘\.I’ .
Arie an ‘riirzii reported in itfli sees * –:saa.
The learned Csditnset fnr.the’%g$’et!ttoners sn Ananda K.
and Sr! 5…. Kham-oz !<he.r:.,. smearing"! titre pettttenem In writ.
petitions i\io.37–?'8 'f4.'2-fifi3"'r*ésraer:c'iveiy, have arsa
addressed slrntlar s;rgnr.n_ents%.'as:'dbnv'e Srl M.R. Nalk.
sn Ramesh, the lrned
Counsei arurrarini ffrt,hea…*es'pandent tiniversity subrnttta that
the ettamtnatlond system' Is time tested and over the years it has
sbejcome~fdolfnr69f. The Instructions and guidelines governing
th'e.t'I'i!I'ntv:.v u'f$'tjeffb;M.R. answer sheets were made available to the
'aveandtdates; nrell In advance. He particularly brings to my notloe
' '{§ns.rtI;t;t!e'n htetltl, which reads as follows:
"10. Candidate should read the instruction given In
the OMR sheet and question and after which start
fitting the ovais. Even a minute, .'::.=:r.*.*.s-r'.e:rt mark or
HRH,
11
drop of ink on the other oval makes the ,4′
Think before ink.” 1 ” ”
10. Nextly, he also drew my atten.tIon.’_to’tnsti*h’ctton N93′ e.
on the O.M.R. sheet Itself, whlch reads’vae’_foidlowe:_vA”
‘”150 not maize any streya.ritar’ks on this “For
Booklet. ”
. Sri
I-ll
‘1
fll
II
5:
‘El
13»
fl!’
mark one oval, the process he
realises “tenet; may thereafter proceed
to blacken oual. But then, the marking or
attemptlnohto dlsentltles the candidate to get
_ the !’-‘-%!’k;s for the eveh Even !.f the merlclhg of the first
‘~.€’lVtTIIn’I_3 fir-“BU’ fiiffi u C , Hull 5
.;n
same-;..”He’:§_to_dt§ced the orloinai O.M.R. answer sheets to show
the merklhd on more than one alternative. He submitted that a
h H M ” 4.””ca:rsd!date”is not entitled to net the welahtaoe for answer, which
have marked correctly, subsequent to the putting of a
‘T smell dot or mark on the other oval.
12. Sr! Ramesh submits that almost ail entrance tests
n’BH’.
12
are conducted by adopting Identical procedure….._xj
valuation, merit list is prepared. If any
made In the
15
adjudicated by _ jjétrncier”””fi\rticie 226 of the
constitution”ofes.Ini!§e_.__ interfere in matters of
academic.vV1educatlon..__::’5ri’Ramesh relied on the Judgment of the
Calcutta High . Co:irt’l:e.fin’ case of IIAJOIISHI DIE v.
unwgnsm to-:=. [cA|.cerrh1’A AND omens reported in AIR
_which”*ls hounhd’ to succeed or the error is so gross or apparent
‘ no other conclusion is possible for the purpose of applying
discretion by it.
14. Using the magnifying giass, i have scrutinised the
original O.M.R. answer sheets. I found that there are some
e_!t!oners’ marks, it wlitresuit .!n’.a!ter!r!s.tljie’ enttre
13
dots/marks/erasing or scratching of the marking,-.:.,_t.l’|e
instructions, extracted hereinabove, make ittpgahtindentifi
that even a minute inadvertent touchllordrop.;ofJiekV:Von«’ otherf_
be held to be at fault for denvirifithe therais
marking on two ovals. surh’miesiefie._made’on ‘behalf of the
petitioners that the dot or oval might
have happened Einthe or handling by
the personn¢éi”‘Irp:hia’rg5e.:of.j’eoi:dl§ctingV.. the examination, is ipse
opens wh!”ch”t:hie court cannot act.
di:-:!t of the pe
15.A” a|so’v…’fInd»:_’thatthe respondent University ..has
_ manu_ei’iy checi<ed__'th'e ansvver papers, when their retotalllng and
vvere sohlglht. Wherever the mistakes had indeed
taken pie.é:°e,,"tt;e..5r$pondent University has e-.-amt'; reamed the
impression on the carbonless duplicate answer sheet. i am
A-Du
roan.
L
A !!s»stadrtt.rca_e an
~_.h|a.¢i an
‘ulwg Luau In nriliril
14
therefore In no position to give acceptability to
urged on behalf of the petitioners that If thereatie
traces of marking two or more enswete. in ‘ee.rb’eh-lvess
J LIJIIILI Km L1’L h
7 tfi CIISWUI bll t, ‘lllllU;t U.
answer sheet aiso.
17. Just because’*«–.th_e_ University has not
the conseq’ ‘ “uence wher’
open to it to d4o§–.so,:fit._fioes no’ e_ntfii”in:’
the Unlversltf ts ‘eb1!9ed ‘te’V’VI§.r:oVre:§th:e dot or mark or scratch on
one ovaliand .,.1;he.’petItIoners on flndlng that the
oval is many’ blackenedff ft
_T_’There”t:an…..be no dispute with the proposition that
AV”–an3(“arbitrary;’«decision, be It administrative, judlclal or quasi-
judictat,’ u–7jt_;d§.c|Ja||y revlewable. But I do not find any
‘arbitrartnesshvon the part of the University. The facts of the
the declslen of the Hen.’l_1!e supreme court
‘ in.
E5″
an Al H’AIlflIIII IIIIIIIEDEITV I
II. waiavh \
‘V ‘ “”v.difr’erent. in the said reported case, the issue invoived was, if a
‘ paper setter commits an error while Indlcatlng the correct
ADM
nD.n_
15
answer to a question set by him, can the studentsi._yrh’o’a§snstyer
that question correctly, be failed for the reason
answer is correct, it did not accord with”tl°:e ‘answer>*sopVplied”.by’ it
-Hus nannr cal-I-Ar in -|- A ilnlunrel u an r-4:’~.-.,r nne\.’us,||-“‘9
III? PCP?! féiiél EU III? HIIIVTIEIIV’ 33 E91! i I
19. In the case of (eupra), the
Hon’bIe Supreme Court toé-kAthe;,*_»foliowing considered View in
“7. or case, there can be
some %_rfelaxa:tion in submission of proof and
it urirr amt apr2r’yl”any it
pertains me ‘ppxedum; redaction of
the we -relatinfi.:’to’:””5ubmiesion of proof need not
necessarily’ In”re_iér:tion of candidature. ”
observation was made in a different context
T
Etfhflfl nn camnnnce nr clrnlla ht hahunnn l- A -n e
I &fi.T:lIl’ITI,O’ V If II? iKIll€UIf3i WI fII’I”¥’ I’, “W”TTII HI.’ IHEWT
_ 1.IA_x’_’V’__._, _”.”___AI’ l.I__ _._|_I .__-__._n.__I ____ u-_ LL- _._I_I ___- n.I__
EH95,’ CREE flflu IRE Sail} TEDDITECI C353. in “IE SHIU CISH, [He
‘”77ik’ff«._si:udent,” on passing 10+2 examination, sought admission to a
it rnedtcai course availing the reservation meant for the children of
‘I§’Ex.-éewicemen who were discharged from armed forces on the
~ aground of permanent disability. That was the case where the
fi.RH.
16
Ziila Salnlk Board had committed a mistake
certificate; the said mistake was rectified by ofethxg
20. In the case of ABH1jit11(‘supra),~–:the student who
will
_ t Rank in M=B;£.L§;–_ r1:c:e~,:ee..a;:~s Aiexamlttetton and who
in Sfiffififii fififi.’Ei’s”5’f€.’:fiuaLi1ua’ii uoioay, was rrt seiected
for admission.to-..:tMtS}_’._Vdegjree deduction of 5% made from
the marks__oi7J:teIiri:e§3i;_;t}\(2″h’ii1iV:’.:on– ground that he had passed
the subject In.the–“sec’ond’ The Hon’bIe Supreme Court
held such a’V.d:eductioh:to:.4be_ni’rhperrnlssibie, as the student had
_ not apgoeared first ‘examination on account of serious
the foregoing reasons, I do not find any scope
VA for Ahwiytnterference in the matter. I dlsmm these M-titlons, but
iittg “o’er as to crsts
rt 1 I _
Du] ”
iudge
inn