IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19238 of 2008(M)
1. TONY SIMON, S/O. DR.SIMON
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS
For Petitioner :SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :26/06/2008
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.19238 OF 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of June, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a student who wrote the Common Entrance
Test for admission to MBBS Course in Medical Colleges in Kerala
for the year 2008. After the test, the Commissioner of Entrance
Examinations published an answer key, as per which, according
to the petitioner, the answers to question numbers 85 and 90
given by the petitioner were correct. However, later on, the
Commissioner of Entrance Examinations changed the answer key
for these two questions, as a result of which the petitioner lost
valuable marks which would materially affect his rank in the rank
list prepared. The petitioner therefore earlier approached this
Court seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider his
representations in this regard. Pursuant to direction from this
Court, the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations has now
passed Ext.P12 order rejecting the contentions of the petitioner
on the ground that the answers were decided by an expert
W.P.(c)No.19238/08 2
committee on account of complaint received from many
students and their parents, complying with the procedure
prescribed for the purpose in the prospectus itself. The
petitioner would submit that in so far as the answers given by
the petitioner are supported by authoritative text books
published by the NCERT, the original answer key in respect of
two questions referred to has to be retained and the decision
to change the same, even if it is by an expert committee, is
unsustainable. He also points out that in Ext.P12, there is no
mention as to why his contentions in this regard are not
correct. The petitioner therefore, seeks the following reliefs:
“(1) To declare that the action of the
Respondents in revising the answer key under Exhibit P-
6 in so far as the Paper II Biology is concerned as
arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable and bad in law and hence
declare the same as null and void.
(2) To call for the records leading to the
revision of the answer keys as under Exhibit P-6
examine its legality, propriety and quash the revised
answer key list.
(3) To declare that Exhibit P-6 in so far as it
relates to the revision of answer keys in respect of the
Biology paper is null and void.
4) To direct the respondents to evaluate the
answer paper of the petitioner on the basis of the initial
W.P.(c)No.19238/08 3
key published and determine the rank/position of the
petitioner in the rank list accordingly.
5) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other
writ direction or order, holding that Exhibit P12 suffers
from an error apparent on the face of it and quash the
same.
6) To direct the respondents to conduct the
counselling process on the basis of the rank list drawn
as per above i.e., without any change in the revision in
the answer key.”
2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.
The relevant portion of Ext.P12 reads thus:
“As directed by the Hon’ble High Court in its
Judgment read as 1st paper above the 2nd respondent
has examined the Ext.P-10 representation of the
petitioner in terms of the conditions stipulated in the
prospectus for Admission to professional Degree
Courses, 2008 duly approved by Govt. as per G.o.(Rt)
No.51/2008/H.Edn. Dated 8/1/2008 which is
reproduced below.
9.7 The Declaration of Results:
9.7.1 The Commissioner for Entrance
Examinations will publish the “Answer Keys” of all the
Objective type Papers of the Entrance Examinations
in the web-site of the CEE (cee-kerala.org) and in
leading dailies, after the completion of all the
examinations.
9.7.2. If any candidate has complaint
regarding the answer keys, the same should be
submitted to the CEE in writing along with supportingW.P.(c)No.19238/08 4
documents within 7 days from the date of publication
of the answer keys in the web site of the CEE.
Complaints received after the stipulated date will not
be considered under any circumstances. Complaints
received as e-mails/Fax will not be considered on any
account.
9.7.3 All complaints received will be referred
to expert committees to be constituted by the CEE.
The recommendations of the Committees will be final.
Necessary modifications will be made in the published
answer keys based on the recommendations of the
expert committees. Individual replies will not be
given to the candidates on the decision of the
Committees.
As per the above clauses the 2nd respondent’s
office has published the Answer Keys of
Engineering/Medical Entrance examinations 2008 on
24/4/2008 in the official website and allowed
prescribed time for registering complaints along with
supporting documents till 4 p.m. on 2/5/2008. all
the complaints received within the stipulated period
were referred to the expert committees constituted
as per clause 9.7.3 of the prospectus for verification
of answer keys. The said committee constituted for
the verification of answer keys of Biology paper
considered and scrutinised the complaints and
submitted their recommendations. Based on the
recommendations of the expert committee only,
necessary modifications have been made in the
published answer keys of Biology and other papers by
the 2nd respondent. The revised keys were published
on 21/5/08. As per clause 9.7.3. of the prospectus
approved by Govt. “The recommendations of the
Committees will be final”. So the revised keys
published on the basis of the recommendations of the
Expert Committee will be final and the 2nd respondentW.P.(c)No.19238/08 5
has acted according to the provisions of the
prospectus.
Every year, after the Common Entrance Test results are
published, such disputes crop up and it has been made subject
matter of challenge in this Court every year. Anticipating such
complaints, a specific provision has been included in the
prospectus itself for dealing with such complaints. An expert
committee has been appointed this year in accordance with the
procedure prescribed in the prospectus for dealing with such
complaints. That expert committee has gone into the
complaints received in respect of those two questions also and
that committee has come to the conclusion that the answers
given in the original answer key were wrong. Neither the 2nd
respondent nor this Court is an expert on the subject. The
petitioner has no case that the members of the expert
committee appointed by the 2nd respondent are not competent
to decide the matter. That being so, I am not satisfied that
there is justification for this Court to interfere in the same.
W.P.(c)No.19238/08 6
In the above circumstances, I do not think that the
petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition
in so far as the matter has been decided on the basis of the
recommendation of the expert committee constituted for this
specific purpose as provided in the prospectus itself which is
binding on the petitioner. Even otherwise, if the rank list is
directed to be tinkered with at this point of time, it would
result in the entire admission process being stalled indefinitely.
Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and
accordingly, the same is dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
W.P.(c)No.19238/08 7