Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anupama Rana vs Management Development Institute And ... on 16 October, 2014
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
CWP No. 21102 of 2013 1
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(1) CWP No. 21102 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: October 16, 2014.
Ms. Anupama Rana
...Petitioner
Versus
Management Development Institute and another
...Respondents
(2) CWP No. 21130 of 2013 (O&M)
Gobind Maini
...Petitioner
Versus
Management Development Institute and another
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Arjun Pratap Atma Ram, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CWP No. 21102 of 2013.
Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CWP No. 21130 of 2013.
Mr. Rajat Arora, Advocate,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
PREM SINGH
2014.10.29 13:20
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
CWP No. 21102 of 2013 2
K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioners in both the cases were candidates who had taken a common admission test for the management courses called CAT 2012. The petitioners, who gained their admission on the basis of the marks which were notified in the website hosted by the 2nd respondent, were later informed that there was an error in upholding the correct marks for all the students and it transpired that the agency which had been entrusted with the task of uploading data from the original disk maintained by M/s Prometric was manipulated in such a way that 80 candidates had obtained different percentiles than what were actually contained in the original data that had been supplied by M/s Prometric. On the basis of the information so obtained, the respective colleges which are arrayed as 1st respondent in the 2 writ petition got the admission of the respective petitioners were cancelled.
2. The petitioners had come on challenge to this court in earlier writ petition contending that it was a unilateral decision without joining them in any form of inquiry and there was no basis even how the marks have been changed and how the manipulation has taken place. This court sustained the challenge and directed the respondents to show cause against the decision and take a fresh decision. The petitioners came by the same result when the respondents reiterated that the original master disc containing the grades of the students contained different grades/marks than what was actually published. For instance, for the petitioner in CWP No. 21130 of 2013, against the percentile of 39.1, as contained in the master CD, the marks uploaded was 99.44. As regards the petitioner in CWP No. PREM SINGH 2014.10.29 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 21102 of 2013 3 21102 of 1993, against the marks of 79.56, marks uploaded was 99.03. This discrepancy, according to the respondents, was sufficient justification for withdrawal of the admission. It was brought out in the reply that a criminal case had been lodged against the particular agency at Lucknow who had uploaded the data by manipulating the marks for 80 candidates.
3. When some students are granted admission on the basis of the marks of what are published and they are sought to be withdrawn later, the burden of proof shall be wholly on the respondents to justify their action. The justification cannot merely consist of showing a discrepancy between what is shown in their master CD containing the particular marks and the marks that were actually uploaded. A person that comes by publication of result as regards his marks, gains an admission on such basis acquires right to continue the course, unless it is shown that the marks as assigned were wrong. The counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent states that the test was online and hence physical verification of the answers that respective candidates had given and how they had secured the respective percentile cannot be made available to the court. I find the arguments to be naïve, for, a challenge to the result must have basis to substantiate that what was contained in the master CD contained what was correct. It may not be that every student who had not acquired the requisite qualifying marks in percentile had not challenged the marks. There could be no presumption that what was contained in the master CD was a reflection of how the respective candidates had actually performed and had actually been given correct marks. This becomes relevant in every situation where a challenge is PREM SINGH 2014.10.29 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 21102 of 2013 4 brought by student that questions appraisal made for him/her. The justification now for the decision to terminate cannot merely lie on an inability that respondents have set for themselves. A physical verification need not necessarily be a production of a hard copy of a sheet which a person fills up as answers. Even if the answers are in electronic mode, the respondents are bound to retain the answers as filled in such mode and retain them for sufficient time to justify the grading, if ever a challenge is brought before the court. In this case, when this court was ordering the respondents to show cause against the decision already made, they were required not merely to show a discrepancy between what was contained in the master data and the marks uploaded but they were bound to bring the proof that what was alleged to contain in the muster data was correct evaluation of what was made against the respective petitioners.
4. The respondents have failed by their own admission in their written statements of their inability to produce the answer keys or any data that would show that the marks assigned were correct. The decision to withdraw an admission was clearly wrong under the circumstances. Even apart from that, the students have been allowed to continue and it is stated that are indeed more than 17 vacancy which were still there and they have come to the fag end of duration of their course which shall complete by January, 2015. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners refers me to the observations of the Division Bench in a case in Ms. Arunjeet Gosal Versus Chandigarh Administration and others in LPA No. 1544 of 2012 dated 16.1.2014 that brought a challenge to admission to MBBS course PREM SINGH 2014.10.29 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 21102 of 2013 5 where by the time when the case brought for hearing, more than 1-1/2 years have already passed. The petitioners had secured admission and the court was observing thus:-
"On consideration of the matter, more so in view of plea of the learned counsel for the appellant, coupled with the fact that the appellant has pursued the course for 1½ years and no other candidate would now get the seat and the seat would go waste, apart from the loss of education time of the appellant, as also the fact that the original petitioner/respondent no. 3 herein would get no benefit and is stated to have got admission in the current year, we are of the view that it is in the interest of justice that the appellant is permitted to continue her education and complete her degree."
I would see the strength of the some logic to sustain continuation of education for the petitioners. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners refers to me also to certain case law regarding estoppel. I am not going into it, for, I find there is fundamental flaw in the decision to terminate the admission on the basis of inadequate and unsubstantiated data to root out the students who have been admitted. I will find no reason for applying the law relating to estoppel in this case and, therefore, I am not re-producing them.
5. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent states that criminal prosecution is still in progress on the basis of the complaint of fraud and the admissions that have now been approved need not any influence the PREM SINGH 2014.10.29 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 21102 of 2013 6 character of investigation or the final outcome of the criminal case. It is observed that this judgment would address only the issue of termination of the students from their courses after having secured their admission. It will not have any bearing to the criminal case which is already in progress.
6. The writ petitions are allowed. The marks are directed to be allowed to issue to the respective students, if that has already not been done.
October 16, 2014 (K.KANNAN)
prem JUDGE
PREM SINGH
2014.10.29 13:20
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh