Patna High Court - Orders
Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive ... vs Nitish Kumar & Ors on 22 July, 2014
Author: Ashutosh Kumar
Bench: Ashutosh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.784 of 2014
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7032 of 2014
======================================================
1. BIHAR COMBINED ENTRANCE COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION BOARD
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN -CUM- MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, I.A.S. ASSOCIATION BUILDING, NEAR
PATNA AIRPORT, PATNA - 800014
2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, BIHAR COMBINED ENTRANCE
COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION BOARD, I.A.S. ASSOCIATION
BUILDING, NEAR PATNA AIRPORT, PATNA - 800014
.... .... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. NITISH KUMAR, SON OF RAJENDRA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF BARAH
VILLAGE, P.S. BELCHI, DISTRICT PATNA - 803211
2. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE MEMBER SECRETARY -CUM- DIRECTOR, INDIGENOUS MEDICAL
EDUCATION (AYURVEDA), GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, I.A.S.
ASSOCIATION BUILDING, NEAR PATNA AIRPORT, PATNA - 800014
5. PATNA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, THROUGH ITS
SUPERINTENDENT, ASHOK RAJ PATH, PATNA
6. THE PRINCIPAL, PATNA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, ASHOK
RAJ PATH, PATNA
.... .... RESPONDENTS
APPEARANCE :
FOR THE APPELLANTS : MR. LALIT KISHORE, P.A.A.G.
MR. SATYABIR BHARTI, ADV
MR. VIKASH KUMAR, ADV
FOR RESP. NO. 1 : MR. KUMAR KAUSHIK, ADV.
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI
AND
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
CAV ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI)
4 22-07-2014Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') issued an advertisement, on 31.12.2013, inviting online applications for Post Graduate Medical Admission Test, 2014 (in short, 'PGMAT-2014') in order to select candidates for admission to the first year of various Post Graduate Degree/Diploma courses in Government Medical Colleges of Bihar.
Patna High Court LPA No.784 of 2014 (5) dt.22-07-2014 2
2. The respondent No. 1 herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the private respondent"), being eligible, appeared, on 09.03.2014, in PGMAT-2014, conducted by the Board. The Board, after having conducted the Post Graduate Medical Admission Test, 2014, and before publishing the final result, constituted a panel of Experts to verify the Model Key Answers of question booklet of 'A' series provided by the question setters. The panel of Experts found one discrepancy in question No.197 of 'A' series and suggested option 'C' as correct answer. The Model Key Answers were accordingly uploaded, on 13.03.2014, on the website of the Board with intent to invite objections, if any.
3. Objections were received from candidates with respect to 25 questions. The private respondent, who was one of the candidates in the PGMAT-2014, did not file any objection to the uploaded Model Key Answers. The objections, raised by some of the candidates, as well as the Model Key Answers were, as a whole, referred to another panel of Experts in order to get verified the correctness of the Model Key Answers vis-à-vis the objections raised by some of the candidates. The Expert Committee, so constituted, examined all Model Key Answers of 250 questions and also examined the objections raised by the candidates and, then, submitted its report, whereby it Patna High Court LPA No.784 of 2014 (5) dt.22-07-2014 3 recommended deletion of question Nos. 222 and 241 and change in Model Key Answers with respect to five questions. The recommendations, so made, were sent by the Board to the question setters so as to get the recommendations examined. The question setters approved the recommendations of the Expert Committee and the Board accepted the said recommendations.
4. In the light of the recommendation of the Expert Committee, the results were published on 19.03.2014, wherein the private respondent secured General Rank 30. In terms of the result, so published, the private respondent was declared successful and was awarded Post Graduate Course in General Surgery.
5. The counseling, which had earlier been scheduled from 03.04.2014 to 12.04.2014, was postponed on 28.03.2014 and the same was re-scheduled from 19.04.2014 to 28.04.2014. On the same date (i.e., on 28.04.2014), the private respondent submitted, for the first time, his objection to the Board with respect to 8 Model Key Answers, the 8 Model Key Answers being in respect of question numbers, namely, 152, 76, 35, 88, 93, 158, 72 and 76 of Booklet 'D' series.
6. Since the objections, so raised, by the private respondent, were not considered by the Board, he filed, on 04.04.2014, a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Patna High Court LPA No.784 of 2014 (5) dt.22-07-2014 4 Constitution of India, seeking, therein, inter alia, issuance of a writ, in the nature of mandamus, commanding the petitioners herein to correct the answers in the Model Key Answers and get the OMR answer sheets of the candidates re-evaluated on the basis of the correct Model Key Answers. This writ petition came to be registered as CWJC No. 7032 of 2014. In the writ petition, so filed by the private respondent, a prayer was made by the private respondent, as writ petitioner, for stay of the further process of admission pursuant to PGMAT-2014, which had been conducted by the Board.
7. The writ petition was taken up, on 16.04.2014, by a learned single Judge of this Court, who passed an order requesting the learned Counsel for the Board to seek instructions whether the objections, raised by the private respondent, had been considered or not.
8. A Special Leave Petition was preferred by the private respondent against the order, dated 16.05.2014, which gave rise to SLP (Civil) No. 14694 of 2014. By order, dated 23.06.2014, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
9. Thereafter, on 18.04.2014, an order was passed requesting the learned Counsel for the Board to seek instructions as to within what possible time the Board can get the said 8 answers examined by Experts. This Patna High Court LPA No.784 of 2014 (5) dt.22-07-2014 5 apart, a further direction was given, under the order, dated 18.04.2014, aforementioned, to the effect that the result of counseling shall be subject to the result of the writ petition.
10. When the writ petition came for consideration, on 24.04.2014, the learned single Judge was informed by the learned Counsel, appearing for the Board, that Model Key Answers had already been uploaded, on 13.03.2014, on the website of the Board, i.e., before publication of the result, the objections, which had been received, were referred to Expert Committee and the Expert Committee's recommendations were sent to the question setters for further verification, whereupon final result was published on 19.03.2014 and, thus, there may not be any further interference with the selection process at the instance of the private respondent.
11. The learned single Judge, while agreeing with the stand of the Board, however, directed the Board to get the Model Key Answers to the said 8 questions verified by a Committee of Experts within 10 days. This direction has been passed, as observed in the order itself, for satisfaction of the private respondent and also of the learned Court.
12. Thereafter, the Board filed Interlocutory Application, being I.A. No. 3647 of 2014, seeking recall of the orders, dated 18.04.2014 and 24.04.2014, on the Patna High Court LPA No.784 of 2014 (5) dt.22-07-2014 6 grounds, which may be set out as under.
(i) There is no provision for re-evaluation;
(ii) The private respondent had not filed any objection to the Model Key Answers uploaded on the website prior to the publication of the results and, hence, the objection of the private respondent, at such belated stage, needs to be rejected;
(iii) Re-evaluation cannot be directed merely for the sake of asking inasmuch as the Model Key Answers were verified twice before publication of final result;
(iv) None except the private respondent has come forward with objection after publication of the result; and
(v) Any interference, at such belated stage, would disturb the entire final list inasmuch as many candidates have already joined their respective courses and some of them have also resigned from their earlier courses upon getting a better course in the present examination and, hence, re-evaluation, sought for, would lead to total chaos.
13. By order, dated 08.05.2014, I.A. No. 3647 of 2014 has been dismissed with direction to the Controller of Examinations to get the said answers verified by Experts and submit its report, on 16.05.2014, in the writ petition.
14. Aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A. No.3647 of 2014 by order, dated 08.05.2014 (whereby the Board had sought for recalling of the orders, dated 18.04.2014 Patna High Court LPA No.784 of 2014 (5) dt.22-07-2014 7 and 24.04.2014), the Board has put to challenge, in the present appeal, the order, dated 08.05.2014, aforementioned.
15. We have heard Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Principal Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the Board, as appellant, and Mr. P.K. Singh, learned Standing Counsel No. 12, for the State-respondents. We have also heard Mr. Kumar Kaushik, learned Counsel for the private respondent (i.e., writ petitioner).
16. While considering the present appeal, it needs to be borne in mind that ordinarily, an interim order is not be interfered with, in appeal, unless the same is found to be so unreasonable that interference becomes indispensable. In other words, an interim order is, ordinarily, interfered with, in appeal, in rare and exceptional circumstances.
17. Equally important to bear in mind is that schedule for admission to not only MBBS course, but also Post Graduate Medical Courses, for the academic Session 2014-2015, have been specified by the Supreme Court in its order, dated 14.03.2014, passed, in Writ Petition (Civil) No.737 of 2013,(Lipika Gupta & Another V. Union of India & Others).The schedule, which has been fixed for admission to the Post-Graduate Medical Courses for the Academic Session 2014-15, is reproduced below: Patna High Court LPA No.784 of 2014 (5) dt.22-07-2014 8
SCHEDULE FOR POST GRADUATE COURSES
ADMISSION (BROAD SPECIALITY)
1st round of counseling STATE QUOTA ALL INDIA
QUOTA
To be over by 30th Between 4th
March April and 16th
April
Last date for joining the 7th April 26th April
allotted college and
course
2nd round of counseling 27th April to 3rd 9th May to 13th
for allotment of seats May May
from waiting list
Last date for jointing for 10th May 24th May
candidates allotted seats
in 2nd round of counseling
3rd round of counseling 20th June to 25th 25th May to 9th
(Round for filling up seats June June
reverted from AIQ/other
vacant State Quota
Seats)
Last date for joining for 30th June 19th June
candidates allotted seats
in 3rd round of counseling
Commencement of 30th June 30th June
academic session
Last date up to which 10th July Not
students can be applicable
admitted against
vacancies arising due
to any reason from the
waiting list
(Emphasis is added)
18. From the schedule depicted above, it is evident that the last date for joining by the candidates, who were allotted seats, in the 3rd round of counseling, was 30th June, 2014, so far as the State quota is concerned; but in respect of All India quota, the last date of joining was 19th June, 2014, and the academic session ought to have commenced on 30th June, 2014. Patna High Court LPA No.784 of 2014 (5) dt.22-07-2014 9
19. Any application, which comes to this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has to be dealt with adhering to the schedule, which has been fixed in Lipika Gupta (supra) inasmuch as the time schedule, which has been fixed in Lipika Gupta (supra), may be varied by the Supreme Court, but not by any High Court.
20. Coming to the present appeal, what needs to be noted is that, on 18.04.2014, the learned Single Judge, while requesting the learned counsel for the Board, passed the following order:
"This Court requests learned
Counsel for the Board to seek
instructions as to within what
shortest possible time key answers
of the questions pointed out by the
petitioner can be referred to an
Expert Committee for an expert
opinion.
Put up this matter on Monday
(21.04.2014) under the heading "For
Orders", at 10.30 A.M.
Counseling, which is scheduled to
commence from tomorrow, shall be
subject to final result of the writ
application and the Board shall inform the candidates appearing for the Counseling accordingly."
(Emphasis is supplied) Patna High Court LPA No.784 of 2014 (5) dt.22-07-2014 10
21. What becomes apparent from the above is that while passing the order, dated 18.04.2014, even the learned single Judge was conscious of the fact that the counseling was scheduled to commence from 19.04.2014 and adherence to the schedule for admission was of paramount importance.
22. Without, therefore, disturbing the counselling, the learned single Judge directed, under the order, dated 18.02.2014, that the counselling shall be subject to the final result of the writ petition and the Board shall inform candidates, appearing in the counselling, accordingly.
23. What, now, needs to be very carefully noted, is the fact that since the counselling was not stopped by the order, dated 18.02.2014, the counselling had taken place, the lists of selectees were prepared and admissions have been taken by the successful candidates accordingly.
24. When, however, the matter came up, for order, on 24.04.2014, the following order was passed:
"Learned Counsel for the Board submits that the petitioner has filed his objection in respect of model answers of eight questions much late after the result was published on 19.03.2014. He submits that before that model answers Patna High Court LPA No.784 of 2014 (5) dt.22-07-2014 11 were published on 13.03.2014 and objections were received. In the light of the objections, all questions and their model answers were examined by the Experts Committee and, thereafter, the same was sent to the setter also. After verification of all answers of all the questions in the light of the objections already received, the result was moderated and published. Therefore, he submits that the authorities of the Board do not consider it necessary to get the questions re-examined by the experts and accept the matter as finally settled.
Technically, the authorities of the Board are correct. However, since the petitioner has filed his objection in respect of the eight questions, this Court, for satisfaction of the petitioner as well as of this Court, considers it appropriate that the model answers of eight questions pointed out in the objection of the petitioner, as contained in Annexure-
7, should be re-examined by the Committee of the experts.
The Controller of the Examination shall get it done positively within ten days and place the report of the Expert Committee on the records of this case.
(Emphasis is supplied)
25. It was in the circumstances indicated above that the counselling was allowed to be conducted Patna High Court LPA No.784 of 2014 (5) dt.22-07-2014 12 by the learned single Judge by order, dated 18.04.2014, though the result of the counselling was made subject to the final result of the writ petition.
26. From a bare reading of the order, dated 24.04.2014, what clearly transpires is that the learned single Judge was satisfied that 'technically, the authorities of the Board were correct'.
27. Despite the conclusion, so clearly reached, by the learned single Judge that technically, the authorities of the Board were correct, the learned single Judge nonetheless directed re-examination of the model answers of eight questions, as mentioned above, for satisfaction of the writ petitioner (i.e., private respondent) and also for its own satisfaction.
28. When the learned single Judge had already concluded that technically, the resistance, offered by the Board to the re-examination of the Model Key Answers of eight questions, as indicated above, were correct, there was, in our considered view, no scope to direct re- examination for satisfaction of the writ petitioner or for the satisfaction of the Court, particularly, when the time schedule for the admissions could not have been disturbed and cannot be disturbed by the Court, when the time scheduled stands fixed by the Supreme Court.
29.Though the learned single Judge has Patna High Court LPA No.784 of 2014 (5) dt.22-07-2014 13 pointed out, in the subsequent order, dated 24.02.2014, that the Board has made an attempt to take undue advantage by not staying the counselling, the order, dated 18.04.2014, did not indicate that the learned single Judge was satisfied that the stand of the Board, while resisting the prayer for interim order made by the writ petitioner, was without any reasonable cause. Far from this, the learned single Judge had already observed in the order, dated 24.04.2014, that technically, the authorities of the Board were correct and when there is nothing whatsoever, in the writ petition, to show that the writ petitioner was prevented by any excusable reason from raising his objection earlier, there was no sustainable reason to observe in the order, dated 24.02.2014, that the Board had made an attempt to take undue advantage of the fact that the counseling had not been stayed.
30. In fact, as already pointed out above, the writ petitioner has, nowhere, claimed that he was not aware of the online publication of the Model Key Answers and/or that he had noticed the same belatedly and, therefore, could not raise objection before the result was announced.
31. Coupled with the above, it is of immense importance to note that in paragraph 12 of the writ petition, the writ petitioner has averred that the Board Patna High Court LPA No.784 of 2014 (5) dt.22-07-2014 14 had published Model Key Answers of the questions asked in series 'A' of the PGMAT-2014 (Medical) and the answers of various questions in aforesaid answer key were incorrect against which objections were raised and, on the objections, so raised, six answers were corrected.
32. Controverting the above submissions made by the private respondent (i.e., the writ petitioner), at paragraph 12 of the writ petition, the appellant herein, in I. A. No. 3647 of 2014, categorically denied, in paragraph 13, that the private respondent had submitted any objection to the Model Key Answers, and asserted that before the publication of the result, the private respondent had not submitted any objection, though many other candidates had submitted their objections, both online and in the offline, at the Board's office, which were duly considered by the Expert Committee constituted for the purpose.
33. While filing his rejoinder to the said I. A. No. 3647 of 2014, the private respondent, nowhere, reasserted the averment made in paragraph 12 of the writ petition. Far from this, the private respondent merely claimed, in his rejoinder, that he (private respondent) had met the officials of the Board and had, 'orally', made his objections and was told by the members that verification of all questions would be done.
Patna High Court LPA No.784 of 2014 (5) dt.22-07-2014 15
34. A careful examination of paragraph 12 of the writ petition leaves no room for doubt that the private respondent had not mentioned , in his writ petition, that he had raised his first objection, orally, and, then, submitted his objection, in writing. Palpably, therefore, the private respondent did not come to the Court with clean hands and was, in such circumstances, not entitled to invoke the Court's extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
35. As a matter of fact, even after publication of the result of the examination, the writ petitioner did not promptly raise the objection to the correctness of the model answers, though time was extremely valuable in the light of the schedule according to which admissions to the Post Graduate Medical courses were required to be completed.
36. We have carefully perused the writ petition and we do not find any averment in the writ petition to the effect that the writ petitioner (i.e., the private respondent) had no occasion to go through the online application and could not, therefore, file his objection. As no objection has been raised by the private respondent before the publication of the result, the result, published by the Board, was binding on all the parties concerned.
37. The sheet-anchor of the private Patna High Court LPA No.784 of 2014 (5) dt.22-07-2014 16 respondent's case is the decision in Rajesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar [2013(4) PLJR 398 (SC)], wherein a competitive examination was conducted and the Court interfered with the Model Key Answers, which were alleged to be incorrect. The case of Rajesh Kumar (Supra) deals with a process of recruitment to the posts of Junior Engineer in various Departments of the Government of Bihar, namely, Road Construction Department, Water Resources Department and the Public Health Engineering Department. There was no judicially determined time schedule for recruitment to the service, in Rajesh Kumar (Supra); whereas the present one is a case, where time schedule is of utmost importance and cannot be deviated by this Court until the Supreme Court modifies the time schedule itself.
38. Yet another case, which has been heavily relied upon by the writ petition (i.e., the respondent herein) is the case of Guru Nanak Dev University v. Saumil Garg [(2005) 13 SCC 749], which arises out of examination conducted for MBBS Course, where the last date of admission was 30th September; whereas the decision was rendered by the Supreme Court on 24th of August, 2005. Taking this fact into account, the Supreme Court, in Saumil Garg (supra), expressing its anxiety in the light of the urgency of the matter, observed as Patna High Court LPA No.784 of 2014 (5) dt.22-07-2014 17 follows:
"10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular, the stage of admissions and the fact that the medical courses are supposed to commence on 1st August every year and the last date of admissions for stray seats under all circumstances is 30th September, we do not think appropriate that all the 200 questions deserve to be referred for determining as to what are the correct key answers. At this stage, it would also not be appropriate to refer to the opinions given by other professors in these matters as to correctness of key answers."
(Emphasis is supplied)
39. What becomes, thus, impossible to ignore is that the Supreme Court, in Saumil Garg (supra), declined to refer all the 200 questions to the Expert for determination of the correctness of the Model Key Answers, because the last date for admission was 30th of September. This is clear from the observations made, at paragraph 10, in Saumil Garg (supra), which we have already reproduced above.
40. No doubt, it has been observed, in Saumil Garg (supra), that merit should not be a casualty. Keeping in view, however, the time schedule of admission Patna High Court LPA No.784 of 2014 (5) dt.22-07-2014 18 to medical courses, the Supreme Court directed examination of the Model Key Answers of only 8 questions (and not all questions). The relevant observations appearing in this regard in Saumil Garg (supra), at paragraph 11, read as follows:
"11. What is paramount is the interest of the student community. Merit should not be a casualty. We feel that the interests of the students would be adequately safeguarded if we direct the appellant University to revaluate the answers of the aforesaid eight questions with reference to the key answers provided by CBSE and the University of Delhi which are same and not with reference to the key answers provided by the appellant University."
41. The distinctive feature of Saumil Garg (supra) is that it was the Supreme Court, which had earlier laid down the time schedule for admission to medical courses, but so far as High Courts are concerned, the High Courts were bound to abide by the time schedule. This apart, even though the Supreme Court was conscious of the fact that the merit cannot be allowed to suffer, yet keeping in view the time scheduled of admission to medical courses, the Supreme Court did not, in Saumil Garg (supra), direct, though was being sought for, re-examination/re-evaluation of all the 200 questions Patna High Court LPA No.784 of 2014 (5) dt.22-07-2014 19 and kept confined its direction to the re-examination of the Model Key Answers of only 8 questions.
42. In the case at hand, the Model Key Answers have been examined, as a whole, twice, and in such circumstances, in the absence of any finding that the objections, raised by the private respondent are valid objections, the placing of reliance on the decision, in Saumil Garg (supra), is misconceived.
43. To the case at hand, the decision, in Saumil Garg (supra),which the private respondent has referred to, cannot be applied, when it is clear that the private respondent has not assigned any reason whatsoever for not raising objection to the Model Key Answers of eight questions, at the earliest, before the result was published by the Board. There is also no reason assigned as to why the writ petitioner did not approach the Court, when his objection, raised on 28.03.2014, was not heeded to by the Board, despite the fact that the results were finally announced as early as on 19.03.2014.
44. In the circumstances, indicated above, acceding to the request of the writ petitioner for an interim order for re-evaluation of the answers was, in our considered view, not reasonable, when the learned single Judge has taken note of the fact that the objection, raised Patna High Court LPA No.784 of 2014 (5) dt.22-07-2014 20 by the Board to the prayer for re-evaluation, was technically correct.
45. There is considerable force in the submissions made on behalf of the Board that if there is no stoppage to the process of re-evaluation even after the admissions have taken place or the courses have commenced, it would remain open to a candidate, who may have participated in the medical entrance examination, to raise objection to the correctness of Model Key Answers and to approach the Court for remedy of his grievances at any stage.
46. There must be, we agree with the learned Principal Additional Advocate General, finality attached to the process of admission into a medical course, when admissions to be provided have to run on the basis of the laid down time schedule, more particularly, when no reasonable excuse has been offered by the writ petitioner for not raising his objection before the result was announced and when there is no satisfaction recorded by the learned single Judge that the objection raised by the writ petitioner-private respondent were prima facie correct. In the circumstances so indicated, if the writ petitioner's prayer for interim order is allowed to stand good on record, it may cause hindrance not to only the process of selection under State quota, but also under All Patna High Court LPA No.784 of 2014 (5) dt.22-07-2014 21 India quota.
47. While considering the above aspect of the case, we must refer to the case of Manish Ujwal v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 744, which the private respondent has relied upon. The reliance, on the decision of Manish Ujwal (supra), is, to our mind, wholly misplaced inasmuch in the case of Manis Ujwal (supra), six Key Answers were palpably, demonstrably and admittedly wrong; whereas in the case at hand, there was no admission nor it was demonstrated before the learned single Judge that the Model Key Answers, in respect of the questions, which had been mentioned by the private respondent, were palpably incorrect.
48. By no means, therefore, the decision in Manish Ujwal (supra) could have been applied to the case at hand. As already indicated hereinbefore, there is not even a prima facie finding, in this regard, by the learned single Judge.
49. Situated thus, it is clear that the private respondent did not act promptly. If he had valid reasons to object, why the delay in raising and why there was delay in approaching the Court has not been explained by the private respondent in the writ petition nor could he explain even in this appeal. On the other hand, the Patna High Court LPA No.784 of 2014 (5) dt.22-07-2014 22 private respondent tried to mislead the Court by saying, in the reply to the interlocutory application, as has already been depicted above, that he had, first, raised his objection 'orally' and, then, submitted his written objection. No such averment exists in the writ petition.
50. Clearly, thus, the private respondent came to this Court with unclean hands and, hence, he could not have been made beneficiary of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
51. Because of the fact that the learned single Judge was conscious of the situation that the time schedule, for admission into the courses, in question, was required to be strictly adhered to, the order, dated 18.04.2014, merely requested the learned counsel for the Board to find out as to what would be the shortest possible period of time for referring to the Expert Committee for re-examination of the Model Key Answers to the eight questions. However, it was, thereafter, on 24.04.2014, that the learned single Judge directed the Board to get the Model Key Answers examined with respect to eight questions, which were alleged by the private respondent to be incorrect.
52. We may also pause here to point out that in the backdrop of the schedule, which has been fixed for Patna High Court LPA No.784 of 2014 (5) dt.22-07-2014 23 admission to the Post-Graduate Medical Courses for the academic session 2014-2015, the first counselling was required to be over by 30th of March, 2014; whereas the writ petition was filed on 09.04.2014, though the result was announced as early as on 19.03.2014 and the schedule for counselling was 03.04.2014 to 12.04.2014, which was, however, postponed and re-scheduled, as already mentioned above, from 19.04.2014 to 28.04.2014.
53. With regard to the above, it has been rightly submitted, on behalf of the appellants, that in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Board was of the considered view that in the larger interest of all selected candidates, the objection of the private respondent, at such a belated stage, should not be entertained, for, this had the possibility of disturbing the entire final list of selected candidates leading to total chaos, more particularly, when 90% of the students had already taken admission pursuant to the counselling held by the Board and many of these candidates had resigned and vacated their earlier P.G. Degree and Diploma seats for having received the courses of their choice in PGMAT-2014 held by the Board.
54. The learned single Judge has proceeded on the premise that the Model Key Answers to the questions Patna High Court LPA No.784 of 2014 (5) dt.22-07-2014 24 with respect to which objections had been raised by the candidates were examined only once by a panel of Experts; whereas the admitted fact is that the Model Key Answers to all 250 questions had been reviewed twice by the Committee of Experts inasmuch as not only the first panel of Experts, but the second panel of Experts had also re-examined Model Key Answers to all 250 questions and, then, submitted its opinion that the model answers of six questions required corrections and two questions ought to be deleted. Situated thus, it becomes abundantly clear that there was no need for impugned directions.
55.The learned Single Judge has fallen in error in coming to a conclusion that on account of wrong answers to the questions, hundreds of undeserving students may have been selected, who, at the first instance, on merits, did not deserve; whereas hundreds of others may have been denied selection in spite of being bright and deserving without appreciating one of the principal contentions of the Board that except the writ petitioner, no other candidate had objected to the Model Key Answers by filing any writ petition and the writ petitioner has already been selected in General Surgery branch. Since none other than one candidate (i.e., the writ petitioner) has approached this Court, such a sweeping finding, as recorded by the learned single Patna High Court LPA No.784 of 2014 (5) dt.22-07-2014 25 Judge, cannot be said to have borne out of the materials on record.
56. Learned Principal Additional Advocate General has great substance, when he submits that the learned single Judge has fallen in error in recording a finding that the action of the Board is not bona fide and is an attempt to take undue advantage of the restraint shown by the Court in not staying the counseling inasmuch as according to the learned Principal Additional Advocate General, the Board had preferred the application for recall in the larger interest of all other candidates, who had been selected and had no objections to the Model Key Answers of the questions and that the private respondent had also been selected and was taking a chance at the cost of all other hundreds of candidates, which should not have been permitted merely for the sake of asking. Thus, the application of the Board was, reiterates learned Principal Additional Advocate General, bona fide and in the larger interest of all other successful candidates.
57. We are, therefore, constrained to hold, and we do hold, that in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, no direction, as has been given by order, dated 18.04.2014, and/or by the order, dated 24.04.2014, was called for. Consequently, it is also, to our mind, wholly necessary that the order, Patna High Court LPA No.784 of 2014 (5) dt.22-07-2014 26 dated 18.04.2014, and the order, dated 24.04.2014, be recalled.
58. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we are constrained to allow this appeal and set aside the order, dated 24.04.2014, and all the subsequent directions given in this regard.
(I. A. Ansari, J.) Ashutosh Kumar,J.: I agree.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/
Mkr./AFR
U √