JUDGMENT
S.K. Chawla, J.
1. The order in this petition snail also govern disposal of M.P. Nos. 1395/92, 1396/92, 1423/92, 1466/92, 1419/92, 1572/93 and 133/93.
2. All the petitioners, who are students, appear to be bright students, who secured more than cut-off marks in PMT Examination of the year 1992, but for them English-despised by many as an imposed foreign language-proved by many as an imposed foreign language-proved to be their bane. To begin with, there is a Professional Examination Board in M.P., which conducts every year entrance tests known as PMT and PET Examinations, for admissions to Medical and Engineering Colleges in M. P. We are concerned here with PMT Examination which was held in the month of June, 1992. All the petitioners in the present bunch of petitions appeared in that examination, along with a large number, which appears every year. A merit list was prepared by the Board after the examination, as is done every time, on the basis of aggregate marks obtained by the candidates in Science subjects, viz. Physics, Chemistry, Botany and Zoology (PCBZ). The marks obtained by the candidates in ‘General English’ were not included in the aggregate. It was however necessary that a candidate should have secured at least 25 per cent marks in ‘General English’ to qualify for admission (Rule 1.15.1 and Rule 3.5.2. of the Rules for Entrance Test framed by the State Government for PMT 1992). Accordingly, the names of those candidates who did not obtain 25 per cent marks in the subject of ‘General English’, i.e. 75 marks out of 300, were excluded from the merit list. The last candidate under ‘general category’ who was given admission, had secured aggregate marks of 800 in the merit list and that of the Scheduled Caste category, 420 marks. Coming to the case of the petitioner, they had all obtained more than the above aggregate marks. Thus petitioners Vivek Jain (in the present petition) secured 812 aggregate marks, Manish Bansal (in M.P. 1395/92) 838 marks, Rakesh Sharma (in M.P. 1396/92) 824 marks, Devkinandan Sharma (in M.P. 1423/92) 896 marks, Sangeeta Gupta and Anil Kumar Sharma (in M.P. 1466/92) 882 and 825 marks respectively, Nanju Jain (in M.P. 1419/92) 882 marks, Nitu Sonkar (in
M.P. 1572/92) a Scheduled Caste candidate, 553 marks, and Ruchi Gupta (in M.P. 133/93) 823 marks. They could not however secure even qualifying marks in the subject of ‘General English’. The qualifying marks in this paper, as already pointed out, were 75 out of 300, but the petitioners secured 69 marks (Vivek Jain), 68 marks (Manish Bansai), 72 marks (Rakesh Sharma), 73 marks (Devki-nandan Sharma), 74 marks (Sangeeta Gupta), 71 marks (Anil Kumar Sharma), 72 marks (Manju Jain), 28 marks (Nitu Sonkar) and 55 marks (Ruchi Gupta). For that reason the names of the petitioners did not figure in the merit list, which disabled them from getting admission in MBBS,
3. These petitions are divisible into three categories. In the first category, the prescription of ‘General English’ as one of the subjects for the entrance examination and the requirement of obtaining at least 25 per cent marks in that subject to qualify for admission, was challenged on the ground that it was unreasonable and arbitrary. In this category fall M.P. NOS. 1572/92 and 133/93. In the second category, the rule prescribing minimum qualifying marks in ‘General English’ as 25 per cent without prescription of any minimum qualifying marks in individual science subjects and the further rule that the marks obtained in General English would not be added in the aggregate marks, was assailed as unjust and arbitrary. In this category falls M.P. 133/93. In the third category of cases, challenge was made to certain questions of the ‘General English’ paper, to contend that more marks should now be given by the Court to the petitioners for their answers to those questions, which would enable them to reach the qualifying level. In this category fall the rest of the petitions.
4. Taking the first category of petitions, learned Counsel Shri N. K. Modi contended that English is not one of the subjects pre-scribed for All India Pre-Medical Entrance Test Examination. Hence, it was contended that prescription of ‘General English’ as one of the subjects in PMT Examination 1992 was discriminatory. Further, the requirement about 25 per cent as minimum qualifying
marks was also unreasonable and arbitrary. We find no force in this challenge. We cannot be oblivious of the fact, however regrettable it may be, that degree courses in Medicine even today are in English and instruction is also imparted in English. A student obtaining just 25 per cent of marks in ‘General English’ can be thought of having acquired working knowledge of English language to enable him to study text books in English, if he is admitted to medical courses. This requirement of 25 per cent as qualifying marks cannot in the circumstances be held to be arbitrary. It cannot be said that the said requirement is such as has no connection with the object of the examination. The question as to the subjects in which an entrance test may be held is hardly a matter for the Court unless of course, the subjects are so arbitrarily chosen as to have not the slightest connection with the object of the examination. The subject of English has undoubtedly reasonable connection with the study of medical courses. In the circumstances, we cannot uphold the challenge that prescription of ‘General English’ as a subject in PMT Examination of 1992, and further the requirement about 25 per cent of minimum qualifying marks, was in any way unreasonable or arbitrary. A reference may be made to this Court’s decision in Awadeesh Nema v. State in AIR 1989 Madh Pra 61, negativing the above challenge. It was also observed in the said decision that students who are eligible to appear in the entrance examination of All India Pre-Medical Entrance Examination are those who have passed Higher Secondary School Examination or any equivalent examination with English as one of the subjects. That examination is also held only in English, unlike the PMT. Therefore candidates who are selected on the basis of All India Pre-Medical Entrance Examination form a different group. Students offering themselves for entrance test in PMT on the other hand form another group. The two categories of students forming two different groups, being not similarly situated, there is intelligible basis for differential treatment to them. Hence prescription of ‘General English’ as one of the subjects
for PMT Examination conducted by the Professional Examination Board of M. P. cannot be said to be discriminatory, arbitrary or unreasonable, albeit English is not one of the subjects in All India Pre-Medical Entrance Test Examination.
5. This takes us to the second category of petitions. Learned Counsel Shri K. K. Lahoti contended that while under the rules for PMT 1992 (Rule 3.5.2) there is prescription of minimum qualifying marks for the aggregate marks, there is no prescription of minimum qualifying marks in the individual science subjects. As against this, there is prescription of 25 per cent of marks as minimum qualifying marks in the subject of ‘General English’. Shri Lahoti argued that this gave greater importance to English language in the PMT Examination, which was unreasonable and arbitrary. It was also contended that under the rules, the marks secured in ‘General English’ are not added in the aggregate marks of the students. It was argued that this prevented in the formation of proper estimate of the merit of the student. This rule was also therefore unreasonable and arbitrary. We find no force in this argument advanced by Shri Lahoti. There is such a keen and tough competition for admission to medical courses that a student not attaining some level of marks in individual science subjects would not be able to make up for the needed level of aggregate marks in science subjects to be included in the list of successful candidates. It is, therefore immaterial that no minimum qualifying marks are prescribed in the rules for each individual science subjects. On the other hand, the prescription of minimum qualifying marks as 25 per cent for ‘General English’ was meant to assure, not the level of excellence in English, but as an assurance for merely working knowledge of English language, so that a candidate if admitted in a medical course might not find difficulty and hardship in his studies. There appears to be also a discernible reason behind the rule that marks secured in ‘General English’ would not be added in the aggregate marks of the candidate. That reason apparently is that candidates may not get admitted merely because of their extra-efficiency and mastery
over English language, rather than on the basis of their sound knowledge of science subjects, which is germane for the study of medical subjects. In the circumstances, the entire challenge raised by the learned Counsel fails.
6. This takes us to the last contention based on challenge to particular questions contained in the paper of ‘General English’. It may be proper to mention at the outset that four Sets of papers containing identical English questions, but given indifferent serial order, were distributed to students in the examination hall. This was obviously with a view that there might not be copying among the students by looking to the markings made by the neighbouring candidate. The same question which is say at Serial No. 91 in Set ‘A’ is at Serial No. 94 in Set ‘B’, Serial No. 93 in Set ‘C and Serial No. 92 in Set ‘D’. Questions which have been challenged by the petitioners although the same, are at different Serial numbers according to the Set that was supplied to them and reference has been made by them in the petitions to the questions with reference to their own Serial numbers, which creates a bit of confusion. We propose to refer to the questions challenged by the petitioners by reference to Serial numbers contained in Set ‘A’ only, with alphabet ‘A’ suffixed to them, to indicate that reference is to Set ‘A’.
7. The contention that was raised by Shri A. M. Naik, learned Counsel for the petitioners in this petition and M. P. Nos. 1395/ 92, 1396/92 and 1423/92, was that question No. 20A in the paper of ‘General English’ was wrongly cancelled by the Board as defective. That question, according to the learned Counsel, admits of two correct answers out of four possible answers. It was asserted that question admitting of two correct answers was a valid question and could not be cancelled as defective. It was further argued that petitioners who attempted that question should be awarded full 3 marks for that question with addition of 1 mark, if that was deducted on account of negative marking. It was submitted that it was wrong for the Board to have awarded only proportionate marks to all the candidates for that question acting
under Rule 2.3. It was also submitted that questions 92A, 94A and 100A also admitted of two correct answers each, consisting of the key answer and another alternative out of four possible alternatives and for those questions also the petitioners should be awarded 4 marks for each question, in the manner above indicated.
8. It will be noticed that it was not the contention of Shri Naik, leaving aside question No. 20A which was cancelled by the Board itself, that key answers to all or any of the abovesaid questions were wrong or incorrect. The contention, on the other hand, specifically admitted the position that the key answers to those questions were correct. It was also not considered necessary to plead in the petitions as to what were the alternatives actually marked by the petitioners and further that those were too correct. What was contended was that since the questions challenged admitted of two correct answers and because the computer must have been fed with one of the two correct answers only, and since the Computer must have rejected the answers marked by the petitioners if those did not tally with the answer fed to it, the petitioners should be given 4 marks for each of those questions irrespective of what particular alternatives were marked by them.
9. The law is stated by the Apex Court in Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, (AIR 1983 SC 1230) that if the key answer is demonstrably shown to be incorrect and, on the other hand, the answer marked by the student is shown to be correct, he is entitled to be given full 3 marks for that question and 1 mark to off-set for negative marking, i.e., 4 marks for that question. It has been further indicated in Abhijeet Sen v. State of U. P., (AIR 1984 SC 1402) that where both the key answer and the answer marked by the student are found to be wrong, with reference to correct answer as determined by the Court, the student cannot succeed and cannot be directed to be awarded any marks for that question. The contention raised by Shri Naik refers to a third situation where a question admits of two or more correct answers inclusive of the key answer, out of four possible
alternative answers. It does not refer to a
situation in which a question admits of two or
more near-correct answers including the key
answer, out of four possible alternative
answers. In this situation of the question
admitting of near-correct answers, the proper
course would be to resolve the doubt in favour
of the key answer and to hold it to be correct.
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court ob
served in Samir Gupta’s case (supra) as
follows (at p. 1234):
“If this were a case of doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred the key answer.”
10. We are concerned with a situation where a question admits of two or more equally correct answers inclusive of the key answer, out of four possible alternative answers — a situation to which learned counsel referred. After bestowing considerable thought, we are of the considered view, that such a question, if not already cancelled by the Board, should be cancelled by the Court and relief should be given to the students on that basis.
11. It will be pertinent here to set out Rule 2.3 of PMT 1992 Rules which gives power to the Board to cancel any defective question. –
^^Rule
2-3 nks”k iw.kZ iz’u
izR;sd iz’u fgUnh rFkk vaxzsth Hkk”kkvksa
esa fn;k tkrk gSA rFkk izR;sd iz’u ds ckn mlds pkj lEHkkfor mkj A,
B, C, rFkk D
fn, tkrs gSa nsf[k;s 2-13 fdUrq pkjksa esa ls dsoy ,d gh lgh gksrk gSA
ijh{kkFkhZ dks pkjksa esa ls lgh mkj pqudj mls mkj’khV ij vafdr djuk gksrk
gS tSlk 2-5 esa le>k;k x;k gSA ;fn ijh{kkFkhZ bl fu”d”kZ ij
igqprk gS fd fdlh iz’u ds pkjksa mkjksa esa ls dksbZ Hkh mkj lgh ugha gS
rks mls fudVre lgh mkj dk p;u dj mkj’khV ij vafdr djuk pkfg,A ;fn og lksprk
gS fd dksbZ iz’u gh xyr gS vFkok fdlh iz’u ds ,d ls vf/kd mkj lgh gS] rks mls
;g lc mkj’khV ij fy[kus dh vuqefr ugha gSA e.My ds fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj tks iz’u
;k muds mkj fdlh dkj.k ls =qVh;qDr gksrs gS rks mu iz’uksa dks fujLr djds e.My
mu iz’uksa ds fy, lHkh Nk=ksa dks ml fo”k; esa muds }kjk vftZr vadks ds
vuqikr esa vad nsrk gS] Hkys gh fdlh us mu iz’uksa ds mkj vafdr fd, gks ;k
ughaA ;fn fQftDl esa dqy 5 iz’u fujLr fd, tkrs gS rks ml iz’u i= esa Nk= }kjk
vftZr vad ‘ iz’uksa esa ls gksaxs ftUgsa x.kuk djds mlh vquikr esa 100
iz’uksa esa ls vftZr vadks esa ifjofrZr fd;k tk,xkA mnkgj.kkFkZ ;fn Nk= 95
iz’uksa ls 220 vad vftZr djrk gS rks 100 iz’uksa ls 231-57 vad gks tkosaxs ftls iw.kkZd esa
ifjofrZr dj 232 vad ekU; fd, tk,axsA blh sic
rks 100 iz’uksa esa ls 169-47 vad gks tkosaxs ftUgs iq.kkZad esa ifjofrZr dj 169
vad ekU; fd, tkosaxsA iw.kkZd esa ifjorZu djus ds fy, 0-5 ;k mlls vf/kd vadks
dks ,d rFkk 0-5 ls de vadks dks ‘kqU; fxuk tkosxkA ijh{kkFkhZ }kjk iwNus ij
oh{kds }kjk fdlh iz’u@mkj ds ckjs esa ijh{kkFkhZ dks nh xbZ xyr lykg dh
ftEesnkjh e.My dh ugha gksxhA
nks”kiw.kZ iz’uks dks fujLr djus ds lEcU/k
esa e.My }kjk fy;k x;k fu.kZ; vfUre gksxkA ijh{kkFkhZ ds Lrj ij lEHkkfor
nks”kiw.kZ iz’uks ds ckjs esa fy, x, fu.kZ;ksa ds fy, og Lo;a mkjnk;h
gksxk] e.My ughaA**
Interpreting the above Rule, it was argued by Shri Naik that if a candidate comes to a Conclusion that none of the four possible alternative answers to a question is correct, even then he has to mark the possible answer which is nearest to the correct answer as per the above rule. The rule further says that if the candidate thinks that a particular question is itself wrong or that question admits of more than one correct answer, he does not have the liberty to write any such thing in his answer book. The learned counsel argued on this basis that it was evident that even such a question was not a defective question and could not be cancelled because the candidate is required to make a marking against even such a question. This argument overlooks the basic idea behind the objective test. That basic idea is that it is never left to the individual judgment of the candidates, if a certain question is defective. He cannot himself decide whether any question is defective. He must mark as best as he can and he is not required to make or write any comments. This is what Rule 2.3 speaks. But the power is reserved to the Board to cancel any defective question. None can also deny the justness of such a power. The words giving such power to the Board in the above extract are:
^^e.My ds fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj tks iz’u ;k muds
mkj fdlh dkj.k ls =qfV;qDr gksrs gSa rks mu iz’uksa dks fujLr djds e.My mu
iz’uksa ds fy, lHkh Nk=ksa dks ml fo”k; esa muds }kjk vftZr vadksa ds
vuqikr esa vad nsrk gSa] Hkys gh fdlh us mu iz’uksa ds mkj vafdr fd, gksa ;k
ughaA**
12. The power of the Board to cancel any question is without doubt justiciable in a Court. It may be open to the Court to hold
that any question was improperly cancelled by the Board. It may be further open to the Court to say that some more questions in the paper were defective and shall be treated as cancelled. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ku. Rekha Sanghi v. State of M.P., (M.P. No. 2987 of 1992 decided on 13-11-1992) considered the very ‘General English’ paper considered in these petitions and declared questions 89A and 100A to be defective and directed the petitioners in those cases to be awarded proportionate marks for those questions.
13. The question is, whether any question admitting of two or more correct answers, out of four possible answers, deserves to be cancelled? The Board has power to cancel such a question. If the Board has erred in not doing so, should the Court not cancel such a question? The underlying idea behind the objective test is that a candidate marking one of the four possible answers to a question is not required to describe or give reasons to support his decision. When out of four possible alternatives only one possible alternative is correct, there is always an element of chance that the candidate may just by fluke or, accident mark the correct alternative. To control this evil, negative marking is done. But that way also one mark, i.e. 1/3rd of the full value of the question, if carrying three marks, is deducted. If a question admits of two or more correct answers out of four possible alternatives, the possibility of the candidate having marked the correct answer by accident increases in direct proportionate to the number of correct answers. With respect to such a question, the candidate may have marked the correct answer by chance or accident and yet may assert in Court that he purposely and knowingly marked the correct answer. There is no means of checking such a claim. The privilege of marking is given only to candidates appearing in objective tests. By the way, we the Judges do not have such a privilege to indicate our decision to matters coming before us by marking one of the two or three possible options open to us. We have to give reasons in support of our answer. This is not to decry the system of objective test, which is extensively being used in competitive
examinations. In the conventional descriptive test, a candidate is required to describe his answers. That leaves no room for doubt as to how far the answers given are correct. But the demerit of the descriptive test is that only a few questions can be asked. It was not uncommon in our days of studenthood that some students used to prepare only a few expected questions and would come out successfully in the exams. Students with poor or half knowledge of the subject coming out successfully in descriptive type of examinations was, and is, not an uncommon feature. As against this, the objective tests cover a wide area of the subject and the knowledge of the candidate is extensively tested. The system of objective test is no longer a new fangled concept and has taken, quite rightly, deep roots.
14. A perusal of the Rules (PMT 1992 Rules) gives out in a proper manner the scheme of objective test and as to what should be the true nature of the questions included in such test. Rule 1.9 describing the objective test says:
^^,sls iz’uksa esa izR;sd iz’u ds dqN laHkkfor
mkj igys ls fn, gksrs gSa ftuesa ls dsoy ,d gh lgh gksrk gSA**
Rule 2.3 also says:
^^izR;sd iz’u fgUnh rFkk vaxzsth
Hkk”kkvksa esa fn;k tkrk gS rFkk izR;sd iz’u ds ckn mlds pkj lEHkkfor mkj
A, B, C rFkk
D fn,
tkrs gSa nsf[k;s 2-13 fdUrq pkjksa esa ls dsoy ,d gh lgh gksrk gSA**
This is the scheme of objective test. A question admitting of two or more equally correct answers out of four possible answers, is contrary to the scheme of the objective test. It is a defective question and if the paper-setting authority, or the Board in the present case, has not cancelled that question, the matter on coming for consideration before the Court, the same should be declared to be defective and cancelled.
15. It may be made clear at the cost of repetition that the above rule will not apply where the Court comes to a conclusion that the key answer as also the particular answer marked by the candidate are both near-correct. In that situation, the controversy
should be resolved by holding the key answer to be correct. This is the ratio of Samir Gupta’s case, (AIR 1983 SC 1230)(supra). The other way of saying it is that, it may be that the answer marked by the candidate may not be wholly wrong or may even be closely correct to the key answer, but then unless the key answer is demonstrated to be ‘wrong’, the key answer should be accepted as correct answer. (See Anjali v. Chairman, Professional Examination Board in 1990 MPLJ 81) : AIR 1990 Madh Pra 253), In such a situation, the question would not be held to be defective and the student would not be given any advantage, if he marked any alternative other than the key answer.
16. With respect to a cancelled question,
the rule of the Board in 2.3, already quoted in
a preceding paragraph, is that candidates are
given proportionate marks for that question
in relation to the marks earned by the candi
date in that paper, irrespective of whether that
question was or was not attempted by him.
The rationale behind this course is quite
discernible. It is deemed as if the cancelled
question was not included in the paper. For
example, if 5 questions out of 100 questions in
a paper, say of Physics, are cancelled, it is
deemed as if that paper consisted of only 95
questions. Then, the marks obtained by the
candidate in relation to 95 questions are only
considered. Supposing a candidate had
scored 220 marks in relation to 95 questions,
his score is 220/95. This score is then converted into 100 questions. That score would
then come to Converted
into round figure 220/95×100/1 = 231.57.
Converted into round figure it
will be 232 marks. This score of 232 marks is
proportionate marks in relation to the marks
earned by the candidate in the paper. The
contentin put forward by learned counsel for
the petitioners that even with respect to a
cancelled question a candidate should be
awarded full marks for the marking done by
him, is unreasonable and cannot be accepted.
Proportionate marks are properly awarded by the Board with respect to such questions and with respect to question cancelled by the Court, it is proper to direct award of proportionate marks as was also directed by the Division Bench of this Court in Rekha Sanghi's case (supra).
17. The above course of awarding proportionate marks appears to have the approval of the Apex Court. Speaking about defective questions by referring to them as ‘suspect’ questions, the Supreme Court in Samir Gupta’s case, (AIR 1983 SC 1230) (supra) in paragraph 18 of the report observed that if the attention of the University is drawn to any suspect question, prompt and timely decision must be taken by the University to declare that suspect question as excluded from the paper and no marks should be assigned to it. The exact words used by their Lordships are as follows (at p. 1234) :–
“Lastly, if the attention of the University is drawn to any defect in a key answer or any ambiguity in a question set in the examination, prompt and timely decision must be taken by the University to declare that the suspect question will be excluded from the paper and no marks assigned to it.”
It is thus clear that a defective question should be excluded from the paper. In the system of awarding proportionate marks, also as described above, the defective question is excluded from the paper. The idea of giving full marks to a candidate with respect to such a question does not at all arise.
18. To sum up, if the key answer is demonstrably shown to be incorrect and, on the other hand, the answer marked by the student is shown to be correct, he is entitled to be given full marks, and if 3 marks were fullmarks, then 3 marks, and 1 mark to off-set for negative marking, i.e., 4 marks for that question. Where both the key answer and the answer marked by the student are found to be wrong, with reference to correct answer as determined by the Court, the student cannot succeed and cannot be directed to be awarded any marks for that question. Where a question admits of two or more near-correct answers, inclusive of the key answer, the key answer should be held to be correct and the student is not entitled to be given any marks for marking any alternative other than the key answer. If the question admits of two or more
equally correct answers inclusive of the key answer, that question is defective and has to be cancelled. For that question the student should be given proportionate marks.
19. This is now the stage to take up particular questions challenged.
Question No. 20-A Choose the grammatically correct sentence from each set.
Question No. 20A
A. It was impossible for us to follow her in speech
B. It was impossible for us to follow her in speech.
C. It was impossible with us to follow her in speech.
D. It was impossible for we to follow her in her speech.
This question was declared as defective and cancelled by the Board and proportionate marks were awarded to candidates as per Rule 2.3.
20. The decision of the Board to cancel this question was challenged by the petitioners in the present petitions. It was contended that alternatives ‘A’ and ‘B’ were both correct. It was further contended that a question with two or more correct alternatives is not a defective question. We have already dealt with this aspect and have come to the conclusion that if a question has two or more correct alternatives out of four possible alternatives, it is a defective question and has to be cancelled. The Board, was, therefore, right in cancelling this question. It will further appear that alternatives ‘A’ and ‘B’ are absolutely identical. In that way, the question had three rather than four alternatives. On that ground also, it was defective. It is also wrong to say that A’ and,’B’ were correct. Dr. P. B. Lal, Principal, Government College, Rahat-garh (Sagar) who appeared as an expert from the Board was allowed to address the Court. He explained that the correct alternative would be “It was impossible for us to follow her speech”. This alternative does not figure in alternatives A B C and D given above. The
fact of the matter, therefore, is that none of the alternatives A B C D was correct. This question was rightly cancelled by the Board.
21. Question No. 92A.– Choose the correct verb phrase to complete the sentence.
Question No. 92A– We will reach the station before the train …..
A. will leave C. can leave B. leaves D. has left. The key answer, settled by the committee of experts of the Board, and which was fed to the Computer for valuation, was alternative 'C', i.e. 'leaves'.
It was contended by Shri A. M. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners that although the key answer was correct, even the alternative ‘D’ i.e., ‘has left’ was also correct. The Board relied on paragraph 342 at page 301 in a book named, “A Practical English Grammar” by A. J. Thomson and A. V. Martinet, Fourth 1989 Edition. The learned authors state there that in a time clause, a future form is not used. It is also stated that a future form in time clause becomes a Present Tense. Illustration of Simple Future Tense changing into a Simple Present Tense in a time clause is given, “I will stay till you get back.” (The underlined words are Simple Present Tense.). The authors further go on and give an illustration of Future Perfect changing into Present Perfect “As soon as I have finished, I will give you a call”. (The underlined words are Present Perfect Tense).
The Board also relied on paragraph 217 at page 68 of “High School English Grammar and Composition” by P. C. Wren and H. Martin, reprint 1992. In that, the learned authors have observed that Simple Present Tense has also other uses, Thus in clauses of time and of condition, Simple Present Tense is used, instead of Simple^ Future Tense. Illustration of time clause is given as “I shall wait till you finish your lunch”. (The underlined words are Simple Present Tense).
On the other hand, the petitioners relied on paragraphs 370 at page 172 and 391 at page 209 of J. C. Nesfield’s “English Grammer, Composition and Usage”. At those places the
learned author has stated that when a word ‘before’ is used as conjunction of time, it is followed by a verb in some Present Tense, if the verb in the Principal Clause is in the Future Tense. Illustration given is “The crops will die before the rains fall or have fallen.” Wrong and correct construction of sentences in this connection are also given.
Wrong Correct The crops will die The crops will die be- before the rains will fore the rains fall or fall. have fallen. You will leave India You will leave India before three mon- before three months ths will pass. have passed.
It will be seen from the above that not only use of Simple Present Tense (i.e. ‘fall), but also use of Present Perfect Tense (i.e. ‘have fallen’and ‘have passed’) in a time clause after conjunction of time, is correct.
Petitioners also relied on Exercise 132 at page 141 of the book “Living English Structure” by W. X. Stannard Alien, reprint 1987 Edition. There the learned author has given two following illustrations of pair of sentences.-
(a) He won’t come till the play begins.
(b) He won’t come till the play has begun.
The learned author has also stated that in time clauses, in the same way as Simple Future becomes Simple Present, so Future Perfect becomes Present Perfect.
22. We have reflected and pondered over the above authorities on Grammar relied upon by both the sides. In the question under consideration, i.e. Question No. 92A, the word ‘before’ has been used as temporal conjunction. When a temporal conjunction like ‘before’, when, ‘until’, ‘as soon as’, ‘after’, etc. is used, then although the main clause may be in Future Tense, the verb in some. Present Tense follows the temporal conjunction, but never a verb in Future Tense. This is the rule of Grammar we could cull from the authorities. After the temporal conjunction, illustration given in ‘High School English
Grammar and Composition’ by Wren and Martin is of Simple Present Tense, namely “I shall wait till you finish your lunch”. (Simple Present Tense). The learned authors do not however say that a Present Perfect Tense can never be used in a time clause. On the other hand, overwhelming authorities of A. J. Thomson and A. V. Martinet relied upon by the Board itself and J. C. Nesfield and Alien would show that the use of Present Perfect Tense in a time clause is also correct. Thus illustrations of Present Perfect Tense, i.e., “As soon as I have finished he will give you a call” given by A. J. Thomson and A. V. Martinet in their book and “The crops will die before the rains have fallen” and “You will leave India before three months have passed” given by J. C. Nesfield, and “He won’t come till the play has begun” by W. S. Alien, show that the use of Present Perfect Tense in a time clause is also correct, besides the use of Simple Present Tense. Simply because the learned authors Wren and Martin relied upon by the Board, do not give an illustration of Present Perfect Tense is a time clause cannot mean that use of Present Perfect Tense after the temporal conjunction would be incorrect. The Board did not prescribe any text book on Grammar for students competiting the PMT Examination. It is, therefore, not open to the Board to say on the basis of Wren and Martin’s Grammar book, simply from omission of illustration in Present perfect Tense, that the use of Present Perfect Tense is incorrect. We are clearly of the view that alternatives ‘C’ and ‘D’, i.e., ‘leaves’ and ‘has left’ are both equally correct. For that reason this question is declared to be defective and we cancel this question. The petitioners would be entitled to proportionate marks for this question, in addition to 1 mark if deducted on account of negative marking.
23. Question No. 94A. Choose the correct phrase to complete the sentence.
Question No. 94A. Columbus. …..
America.
A. had discovered B. discovered C. has discovered D. could discover. Alternative 'B' "discovered" was selected
as key answer by committee of the experts of the Board. Reliance is placed by the Board on “Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current-English”, Fourth Edition 1989, at page 342, in which the meaning of the word ‘discover’ is given as follows :
“Discover: learn about (a place, fact, etc. for the first time). Columbus discovered America o I have discovered super restaurant hear here’. O I never discovered how to start the engine.”
As is evident from the above entry in the dictionary, ‘discover’has been used in Simple Past Tense (Columbus discovered America) as also in present Perfect Tense (I have discovered super restaurant near here). If the student is asked the question, “who had discovered America?”, his reply would be that “Columbus had discovered America” and not “Columbus discovered America”. Thus describing a discovery that took place in the distant past, it can very properly be said that “Columbus had discovered America”. It is wrong to say that the alternative “discovered” would be the only correct and that second alternative “had discovered” would not be correct. There is no indication in the question about the kind of tense that may be used in answering that question. Hence both the alternatives “discovered” and “had discovered” would be equally correct. Shri A. M. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners in some of these petitions, stated that when discovery is treated as achievment for people at large and the emphasis is on discovery as an achievement, it can be said that “Columbus has discovered America”. Well, we are not sure. But it is clear that alternatives ‘A’and ‘B’ to this question are equally correct. This question is, therefore, also defective and we cancel it. The petitioners will be entitled to proportionate marks for this question as also to addition of 1 mark if the same was deducted on account of negative marking.
24. Question No. 100A — Choose the correct verb phrase to complete the sentence.
Question No. 100A — He…..in this
office for two years.
A. has been working B. had been working C. has worked D. is working.
We do not wish to enter into detailed discussion on the correctness or otherwise of this question. The Division Bench of this Court in Ku. Rekha Sanghi’s case (supra) has dealt with this question and has held that all the four alternatives ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’and ‘D’ of this question are correct. It has accordingly held this question to be defective and has cancelled it. It has further held that petitioners in the petitions before it would be entitled to proportionate marks for this question as also to 1 mark, if deducted on account of negative marking. We are not inclined to take a different view ai\d agreeing with that decision, hold that petitioners in the present petitions are entitled to proportionate marks for this question as also to 1 mark, if that was deducted on account of negative marking.
25. Question No. 12-A — Choose the correct preposition to fill in the blank in the given sentence.
Question No. 12-A. The Judge set…. .the earlier decision.
A. against B. up C. about D. aside. Shri R. K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner in M. P. No. 1466/92 arguing on the above question, contended that the word 'Judge' in the above question was wrongly printed as 'Jugde'. He argued that for that reason that petitioner, whom he repre sents, could not fathom what the word 'Jugde' meant. Hence, the question could not be attempted by the petitioner and should be declared to be defective. There is absolutely no force in this contention.
There was obviously a printing error in as much as ‘Judge’ was printed as ‘Jugde’. The printing error was so obvious that it could not have led to any confusion or ambiguity because there is no word by the name ‘Judge’. This question required the candidates to choose the correct preposition to form a phrasal verb with ‘Set’. In the context given in the question, the alternative ‘D’ (aside) was the only correct alternative, that completed the meaning of the sentence. We hold that this question was not defective.
26. Question No. 5I-A. Choose the most appropriate word for the relevant blanks in the text of the letter.
231, Garden Road
Timbuctoo
May 1,1992.
Dear Sir,
I have just heard of your terrible loss and hasten to offer you my deepest sympathies. At such a time, it seems vain to try to express one’s feelings of intense sorrow. You have really suffered an…..loss.
Your…..strength
to bear the loss.
Yours faithfully,
Amit.
Question No. 51A.
A. Unbelievable B. Incomparable C. Irreparable D. Unbearable. The key answer to the above question is 'C', i.e., 'Irreparable'. Shri R. K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner chose the alternative 'D', i.e. 'Unbearable' and that too is correct. The report of the commitee of experts is to the following effect:--
“Irreparable is the only adjective out of the given four that goes well will ‘loss’ and the committee found the question to be straight forward and unambiguous.”
We agree that in the context of the sentence, the only correct word way the key answer, i.e. ‘Irreparable’ loss. Alternative ‘D’, i.e. ‘Unbearable’ cannot be said to be appropriate and correct. The contention of the learned counsel is rejected.
27. Question No.49A. Choose the most appropriate word for the relevant blanks in the text of the letter.
231, Garden Road,
Timbuctoo,
May, 1,1992.
Dear Sir,
I have just heard of your terrible loss and hasten to ….. you my…..
…..the loss.
Yours faithfully
Amit.
Question No. 49A.
A. Express B. Present C. Give D. Offer
In The key answer to the above question is ‘D’, i.e., ‘Offer’. It was contended by Shri Anil Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner in M. P. No. 1419/92 that alternative ‘A’, i.e., ‘Express’ is also correct. The opinion of the experts of the Board is that the word ‘Express’ in conjunction with the word ‘you’ is not grammatically possible, while ‘Offer’ in conjunction with ‘you’ is the only correct alternative. We accept this opinion because ‘Express’ could be used only if it was followed by the words ‘to you’ and not simply ‘you’. We hold that the key answer, alternative ‘C’, i.e. ‘Offer’ was the only correct answer to this question land that alternative ‘A’, i.e. ‘Express’ was not correct.
28. Question No. 79 A.– Choose the word which is opposite in meaning to the word at the top.
Question No. 79A.
Religious
A. Unreligious B. Non-religious
C. Irreligious D. Not believing
in God.
Shri Anil Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, while arguing on the above question admitted that the key answer ‘C’ i.e., ‘Irreligious’ is the only correct answer to this question. What he argued was that the spelling of ‘Irreligious’ appeared in the paper as ‘Irreligious’. That is to say alphabet ‘C’ appeared in place of ‘e’ in that word and that made the word incorrect. Hence key answer in alternative ‘C’ could not be said to be the correct answer. The argument has to be stated only to be rejected. It may be that faint impression of printing gave rise to a doubt that the alphabet was ‘c’ instead of ‘e’ in the word ‘Irreligious’. That was at the most or at the worst an innocuous printing defect. The question could not be said to be defective nor the key answer wrong on that score. The contention is rejected.
29. Question No. 89A. Choose the correctly spelt word in each set.
Question No. 89A.
A. Anesthalic B. Anesthetic C. Anaesthatic D. Anaesthetic
We take notice of the fact that this question was declared to be defective and cancelled, for which proportionate marks were directed to be given by a Division Bench of this Court in Rekha Sanghi’s case (supra).
30. This concludes a discussion on particular challenges to the questions. In our opinion, the petitioners are entitled to be given relief with regard to defective questions noticed heretoabove. The question is, in what terms the relief should be moulded? Should directions be given that may upset the admissions of candidates already made, who have been prosecuting their studies in MBBS for the last more than one year ? That may also not be possible because of non-impleadment of those candidates. Anyway, should the directions be given embracing even those candidates who did not get admission, but who evinced no interest in asserting their rights? We would follow the guidelines indicated in paragraphs 9 and 18 of the decision in Charles K. Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew in AIR 1980 SC 1230. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in that decision observed that ‘Judicial process’ must hesitate to scuttle but should salvage wherever possible and destory only when the situation is beyond retrieval. The salvaging would be to confine our directions to the actual petitioners in the present writ petitions.
31. In conclusion, we allow the petitions in part. We direct that in the paper of ‘General English’ of PMT 1992 with respect to questions 89A, 92A, 94A and 100A (and corresponding questions in other Sets), the petitioners shall be given proportionate marks in relation to marks secured by them in that paper. They shall further be given 1 mark each for these questions, if negative marking was done and deduction was made. If on revaluation so done, the petitioners reach or cross the qualifying limit of 75 marks out of 300 in the ‘General English’ paper, they or such or them as reach or cross the qualifying limit shall be given admission as per their new entitlement.
It is further directed that revaluation shall be done by Respondent No. 1 — The Professional Examination Board, M.P., Bhopal within two weeks from the date of this order. Necessary admissions to those petitioners found newly qualified on revaluation shall be given by Respondent No. 3 — State of M.P., within further two weeks from the time of revaluation. If seats are not available, additional seats shall be created for effecting admissions.
No order as to costs.