Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Lavu Narmada vs Convernor, Eamcet-06, Jntu on 18 July, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(5)ALD275, 2006(5)ALT240
Author: R. Subhash Reddy
Bench: R. Subhash Reddy
ORDER R. Subhash Reddy, J.
1. This writ petition is filed by a student, who passed her Intermediate with 97.3 per cent of marks with optional subjects of Biology, Physics and Chemistry, seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not deleting question Nos.46, 47 and 61 of the Zoology Paper of EAMCET-2006 on the ground that the said questions were framed from the syllabus which was not prescribed for Intermediate and for a consequential direction to the respondents to delete the said questions and revaluate the answer scripts and issue rank card accordingly.
2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that after passing the Intermediate the petitioner appeared for the EAMCET-06, Agriculture and Medical stream conducted by the respondent herein with Hall Ticket No. 3524404 held on 4.5.2006. The EAMCET-2006 examination is of Intermediate standard and the syllabus was notified by the Board of Intermediate and on the recommendation of the said syllabus, the Telugu Academy has printed text books. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the syllabus which was published in the text books of Zoology and it is submitted that the question Nos.46, 47 and 61 framed in the EAMCET-2006 for Agriculture and Medical stream are either outside the syllabus prescribed by the Intermediate Board and printed in the books by the Telugu Academy, or the said questions were incorrect and, therefore, she failed to answer the same. The petitioner submitted her objections in respect of the above three questions of Zoology Paper pointing out the reasons, but the same were not considered and were not deleted. As far as question No. 46 is concerned, the petitioner states that it is outside the syllabus prescribed by the Telugu Academy and as per the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Convenor, JNTU v. C. Swarnalatha 1995 (4) ALD 426 (DB), the authorities were directed to prescribe the syllabus for the EAMCET basing on Intermediate standard giving a list of standard text books on each subject and the Convenor shall conduct the test on the basis of the questions set only from the syllabus prescribed. It is submitted that the Board of Intermediate Education had entrusted the publication of Intermediate Syllabus to the Andhra Pradesh Telugu Academy and it was authorized to publish the prescribed text books. Anything outside the said book cannot be considered as being included in the syllabus. But, insofar as question No. 46 is concerned, the said question is not forming part of the syllabus. Further, the question is in respect of the disease symptom which was not given in both Junior and Senior Zoology textbook and thus, outside the syllabus.
3. In respect of question No. 47, it is submitted that the said question suffers from various infirmities, namely, it is outside the prescribed syllabus as published by Telugu Academy, it is nowhere mentioned in the prescribed textbooks about the morphological characters of Hookworm or its mode of transmission to human beings or about the human being the host of the parasite. In case of hookworm, it is only larva of the said parasite that can transmit to human beings and that too the mode of transmission is only by penetration, the word "transmission by contact" in case of Hookworm does not exist in any textbook of parasitology or textbook of medicine. Therefore, either the question or answers provided are inherently wrong, since none of the given human parasites can be transmitted by contact. As such, the said question is liable for deletion.
4. Coming to question No. 61, which reads "The cranial nerve that goes to the external rectus muscle" it is the submission of the learned Counsel that the word 'external rectus muscle' is not found anywhere in the prescribed text books of second year zoology printed by the Telugu Academy and made available to the students in the year 2005 and in that view of the matter the said question is also outside the syllabus prescribed by the Intermediate Board.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta , remedy of judicial review is available to the students to call in question the lapse committed by the paper setter, and therefore, this petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed that appropriate directions be issued for deletion of these questions and for revaluation.
6. On the other hand, counter and additional counter-affidavits are filed by the Convenor of EAMCET-2006. From the averments in the counter-affidavit, it is the case of the respondents that EAMCET-2006 is conducted as per the rules framed in G.O. Ms. Nol6, dated 25.2.2004 under the provisions of the Act and the said G.O empowers EAMCET Committee to prescribe subjects and syllabus and accordingly EAMCET Committee prescribed the standard syllabus duly published in its instructions booklet which is supplied along with application. The questions under challenge are within the syllabus prescribed by EAMCET Committee. Therefore, as G.O. Ms. No. 16 empowers the committee in prescribing subjects and syllabus, petitioners cannot contend that the syllabus should be in toto with the contents of Telugu Academy books published from time to time.
7. With regard to question Nos.46 and 47, it is stated in the counter that question No. 46 deals with Loa loa and question No. 47 deals with Ancylostostoma, which is generally known as Hook worm. Both the questions are addressed to these parasites of man. The term parasite, deals with animals which lead a life of dependence on others. The dependant animal is called as a 'parasite' and the supporting animal is called a Host. Thus, these two questions fall under the topic Animal Association and in the animal association under the broad topic "Parasitism. Both these terms i.e., Animal Associations and Parasitism are in the syllabus of Intermediate of A.P. and EAMCET 2006. These are two examples of parasites. Different authors take different examples to explain the characters. The examples of Loa loa and Hookworm along with many other examples were given in the books of Telugu Academy in the year 2002, but though the topic of parasitism exists in the revised syllabus for 2003-04, but these examples were not printed in the Telugu Academy books, the reason for the same being that the authors are different, whereas the topic of parasitism continues in the syllabus.
8. It is stated that the test is prescribed on analytical basis and that many questions are framed to identify the right answer through elimination process of alternatives and the said alternatives are termed as distractors. With regard to question No. 46, which is in the notified broad topic called 'parasitism', out of 4 answers, 1, 3 and 4 are distractors and in view of the same, the student would realize that the alternative choice No. 2 is the right answer. It is stated that in a competitive examination of such nature, analytical approach is essential. Similar logic also applies to question No. 47. The answers 1, 3 and 4 are distractors and answer No. 2, which is the only alternative is the right answer. With regard to question No. 47, it is explained by the respondents that the question was correctly stated, as the question addressed to the aspect of transmission. It is stated that in nematode parasites, transmission occurs only during its larval stage. Therefore, it is not necessary to specifically mention and incorporate the same in the structure of a question. In the counter filed, it is also explained about the contents of the third party affidavits stating that they are untenable so as to show that the questions are outside the syllabus. So also is the stand of the respondent with regard to question No. 61 stating that it broadly falls in the topic of Central Peripheral and Autonomous Nervous System in brief.
9. With reference to the said averments, it is submitted by Shri Ratangapani Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent that all the questions are within the syllabus notified and are correctly framed. It is further submitted that as much as more than 89000 students have appeared for the medical stream alone, to test the analytical ability of the examinees, some questions are framed by the setters to analyse the correct answer by elimination process. It is further submitted that in the instruction booklet itself it is stated that the notified syllabus is in tune with the revised syllabus of Intermediate and further syllabus is also designed to indicate the scope of subjects included for EAMCET and the topics mentioned therein are not to be regarded as exhaustive.
10. The learned Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.S. Sudhakar v. The Covnenor, EAMCET 1993 (1) ALT 393 (DB), and the judgment of the Apex Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheith .
11. Admissions to Undergraduate Professional Courses are governed by the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fees) Act, 1993, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". As per Section 3 of the said Act, admissions to Medical and Engineering Colleges shall be made only on the basis of the rank assigned in the entrance test prescribed under Section 3(1) of the Act. In exercise of the rule-making power under Section 15 of the Act, rules were framed initially in the year 1989 titled "Andhra Pradesh Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission into Undergraduate Professional Courses through Entrance Test) Rules, 1989 and they were being replaced by new rules from time to time. Basing on the several judgments of the Apex Court, Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 16, dated 25.2.2004 framing the rules titled "the Andhra Pradesh Common Entrance Test for entry into Engineering, Architecture, Pharmacy, Agricultural Medical and Dental Courses Rules, 2004".
12. It is also relevant to refer to some terms defined in the rules. As defined in the said rules, the Engineering, Agriculture and Medical Common Entrance Test, hereinafter called as EAMCET, means examination conducted by Government agency for assigning ranks on merit to the candidates which will be the basis for admission into Engineering Pharmacy, Agriculture, Medical and Dental Courses. As per Rule 2(iv), the Chairman of Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education is the Competent Authority and Committee of EAMCET means the committee empowered to conduct EAMCET by the Competent Authority. As per Rule 4(1), the EAMCET shall be conducted by the Convenor appointed by the Competent Authority and shall be held on such date and centers as may be specified by the State Council in consultation with EAMCET Committee. Under Rule 4(6), the EAMCET Committee is empowered to notify the subjects and syllabus for EAMCET examination. The Competent Authority is empowered to constitute the EAMCET Committee as per Rule 6. The composition of the Committee consists of the Chairman, who shall be the Vice-Chancellor of the University apart from representatives from each University, Commissioner and Director of Technical Education, Director of Medial Education, Director of Telugu Academy, Convenor of Entrance Test of the preceding year etc.
13. For entry into admissions into Medical and Engineering Colleges for the academic year 2006-2007, the Convenor has issued notification and EAMCET was conducted on 4.5.2006 and along with the application form, comprehensive instruction booklet was issued and in Annexure-1 to the instruction booklet, the syllabus was notified in various subjects of Botany, Zoology, Physics, Chemistry and other related subjects. The petitioner has appeared for the said test for the Medical stream with Hall Ticket No. 3524404 and secured 142 marks out of 160 and consequently secured the rank of 502. Her grievance is confined to three questions in the Zoology subject. For the purpose of conducting examinations, the entire question bank is arranged in four series. As there was some confusion with regard the serial number of questions, it is clarified in the additional counter-affidavit and the questions under challenge are 46, 47 and 61 in the subject of zoology in the question paper of 'A' series. As per the procedure and practice in vogue, after conducting examination, draft key way published and on considering the objections, final key was prepared and answer scripts of the candidates were valued with reference to final key prepared by the committee of experts. It is the case of the petitioner that the said questions are not within the syllabus notified to them and are not correctly framed. Question Nos.46, 47 and 61 as set in the examination read as follows:
(46) The vector of the parasite that causes calabar swelling of the eye is:
(1) Triatoma Infestans (2) Chrysops dimidiate (3) Bulinus tenella (4) Phlebotomus sergenti. (47) A triploblastic pseudocoelomte, bilaterally symmetrical human parasite which is oviparous and the transmission is by contact. It is: (1) Filarial worm (2) Hook worm (3) Palalo worm (4) Tape worm (6) The cranial nerve that goes to the external rectus muscle is: (1) II (2) III (3) VII (4) VI
14. From the above, it is to be noticed that the course at 10+2 level, which is normally called as Intermediate, is governed by the provisions of various regulations framed under the A.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1971 and the syllabus is prescribed for such a course. The examination for the same is conducted by the Board of Intermediate by notifying the syllabus for publication of textbooks mainly by Telugu Academy. The syllabus is being notified on year to year basis and there was revision of syllabus from the academic year 2003-2004 onwards. Prior to the said academic year, in the syllabus of zoology for Intermediate, the topic of 'Animal Associations' was prescribed by giving the list of parasites. A detailed study was prescribed in the broad subject, namely, 'parasitism'. But, however, it appears, though the topic of 'Animal Associations' is part of the syllabus revised by the Intermediate Board and parasitism is also a topic covered in the revised syllabus, but, however, various characteristics of parasites were not mentioned in detail in the books printed by the Telugu Academy. The principal contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners with regard to questions 46 and 47 is that the detailed study of parasites, which was prescribed earlier for the Intermediate was not continued in the revised syllabus which is published in Telugu Academy Books and as such, the said questions are outside the syllabus. But the said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that the topic of 'animal associations' is continued in the prescribed syllabus for EAMCET and the topic of 'parasitism' was also mentioned in the syllabi. The word 'syllabus' is such broad that in normal parlance, the same is understood as broad outline of the subject. Of course, 'parasitism' is a vast subject. It would have been appropriate to indicate the required study further also by giving sub-heading to the level of Intermediate standard, but the absence of the same cannot be said that the questions are outside the syllabus so as to seek deletion of the said questions for the valuation of the answer scripts.
15. Even with reference to question No. 61, it is the case of the respondents that the said question falls within the definition of the subject of study, namely, Functional Anatomy of Rabbit-Excretory, Musculoskeletal, Reproductive Systems, Nervous and Endocrine Systems. Special reference is also made under Topic XI (d) of Zoology syllabus, where subjects relating to Central peripheral and autonomous nervous system in brief. Names and Roman numbering of cranial nerves, types- motor, sensory and mixed nerves-Production and propagation of nerve impulse, reflex action.
16. The EAMCET Committee is the committee constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Common Entrance Test for entry into Engineering, Architecture, Pharmacy, Agriculture, Medical and Dental Courses Rules, 2004 and it is empowered to prescribe the syllabus. The committee will consist of various experts. Syllabus is notified by the EAMCET Committee, in which body, there are academic experts and the said body is presumed to have academic expertise in prescribing the syllabus. Even after filing of the objections to the draft key published, objections were considered with reference to very same questions. A perusal of the said record discloses that the experts have consciously overruled objections and taken into account said questions for valuation. In that view of the matter, merely because the questions are not in tune with the detailed syllabus, which was earlier notified prior to the revision and published in the textbooks by the Telugu Academy, it cannot be said that the said questions are outside the syllabus, notified by the EAMCET Committee.
17. In the judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the case of Convenor, JNTU v. C. Swarnalatha (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has issued directions for prescribing the syllabus for the EAMCET and textbooks and also further directions are given to frame such questions from the syllabus prescribed. Referring to the scope of interference with the administration of academic bodies, it is further held that the Court cannot refuse to interfere when fair-play and reasonableness are wanting in the actions of the academic bodies also. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta (supra), Honourable Apex Court examined the situation where paper setter committed an error while indicating the correct answer, and, in such an event, it is stated that the students whose answer is correct should not be deprived of their due entitlement to the award of marks. In the said judgment, it is also held that the key answer should be presumed to be correct.
18. In S.S. Sudhakar v. The Covnenor, EAMCET (supra), relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondents, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the power of this Court in examining such issues is not that of the appellate authority and no interference is called for unless it is proved demonstrably that the key answer is wrong. Further in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheith (supra), relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondents, it is held that the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and departments controlling them.
19. In the case on hand, mainly, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the questions stated above are outside the syllabus notified. But, it is also relevant to note that in the instructions booklet itself, it is clearly indicated thus:
The syllabus is in tune with the revised syllabus introduced for Intermediate Course with effect from the year 2003-2004 and is designed at the level of Intermediate Course and equivalent to (10+2) scheme of examination conducted by Board of Intermediate Education AP.
The syllabus is designed to indicate the scope of subjects included for EAMCET. The topics mentioned therein are not to be regarded as exhaustive. Questions may be asked in EAMCET 2006 to test the students knowledge and intelligent understanding of the subject.
20. Thus, the syllabus is in tune with the revised syllabus of the Board of Intermediate and is designed for the Intermediate Course and also for equivalent examinations. It is also to be noted that the test is not only confined to the students of Intermediate of Andhra Pradesh, but the students who have passed in equivalent examinations of other States also are eligible to write. Further with regard to pattern of syllabus notified, it is stated that the syllabus is designed to indicate the scope of the subjects and the topics mentioned therein are not to be regarded as exhaustive. In view of the said instructions, though the description of the syllabus was not detailed in tune with the syllabus notified by the Board of Intermediate in its revised syllabus, but the fact remains that question Nos.46 and 47 fall within the syllabus notified, namely, animal associations and parasitism. Even with regard to question No. 61, it is stated that question as framed will fall in the Functional Anatomy of Rabbit with particular reference to the topic of Central Peripheral Autonomous Nervous System in brief. In view of the said explanation of the respondents and the plea that they are within the purview of the syllabus notified, it is not permissible for this Court to make a roving enquiry in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to the contentions raised, these are not the cases where either to accept the contention of the learned Counsel as outside syllabus or the questions as framed are not amenable for correct answer from the syllabus notified, detailed publication of which is printed in the textbooks printed by the Telugu Academy. Though by and large the notified syllabus is in tune with the revised syllabus, but, merely because the detailed description of the syllabus is not given in proportion to the standard of Intermediate education and when syllabus was notified and supplied to the petitioner in the instructions booklet at the time of the application itself and the petitioner has not chosen to raise any such objection before the examination was conducted and having subjected herself to examination, it is not open to her now to plead that the questions are outside the syllabus. The concept of Animal Associations and Parasitism and Functional Anatomy of Rabbit and Central Peripheral Autonomous Nervous System are very much notified. As such, the contention, at this stage to plead that the said questions were framed outside the syllabus cannot be accepted.
21. Further, even with reference to third party affidavits relied on by the petitioner, the same will not substantiate the case of the petitioner in view of the explanation offered by the respondents in the additional counter-affidavit. Further, this Court also can take judicial note of the fact as stated in the affidavit filed by the respondents that out of about 89,000 students who appeared for EAMCET -2006 in Medical stream, for question No. 46, 26,798 students have answered correctly, for question No. 47, 21,678 students have answered correctly and for question No. 61, 19817 students have answered correctly. In terms of percentage, about 30 per cent of students have answered correctly with regard to question No. 46 about 25% with regard to question No. 47 and about 20% students have answered question No. 61 correctly. In the affidavit, it is further stated in tabular form as to how lesser number of students answered to the questions to which there is no challenge, than the students answered for question Nos.46, 47 and 61. The said table is reproduced below:
Sl. Unchallenged Number of students
No. Question answered
Nos. Correctly
1 34 15345
2 38 11313
3 75 17533
4 103 14012
5 106 8747
6 113 15407
7 114 12015
8 119 12750
In comparative terms, there are several other questions for which, less number of students have given correct answers than the students who have answered correctly with regard to questions 46, 47 and 61. In any event, in an examination of this nature, if at all any disadvantage as pleaded by the petitioner in framing a question from the subject, which was not detailed in the syllabus, exists, the same would be applicable to all the students in securing the marks and, no special prejudice was suffered by the petitioner.
22. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to upset the process of admissions by interfering in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage, and, having regard to the contentions raised, it cannot be said that it is a case where either key answer is demonstrably proved to be wrong or any question is framed wrongly or outside the syllabus.
23. The writ petition, therefore, is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.