Punjab-Haryana High Court
Divya P. Wangoo vs The Director Post Graduate Institute Of ... on 13 September, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
CWP No.20307 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
*****
CWP No.20307 of 2013
Date of Decision: 13.09.2013
*****
Divya P. Wangoo
. . . .Petitioner
Versus
The Director Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education &
Research, Sector, 12, Chandigarh.
. . . . Respondent
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
*****
Present: Mr.Pankaj Jain, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
The petitioner has prayed for admission in the Post Graduate Course of MD/MS in the academic session 2013. It is alleged that the petitioner had appeared in the entrance test on 19.5.2013 for the examination of MD/MS Course July-2013. Her result was declared on website on 20.5.2013 and her category rank is 3319 and over all rank is 5466. It is submitted that the petitioner is qualified with a score of 89.451 percentile as per the formula given by the respondent at point 11 of the letter dated 13.8.2013 and was eligible for the admission.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the record, I have found that respondent has informed the petitioner vide its letter No. CWP No.20307 of 2013 -2- Misc./Trg./2013/7320 dated 30.8.2013 giving the following explanation: -
"In this connection it is to inform you the algebraic calculations for calculating the percentiles are wrongly done by you, despite having access to the correct formula, which states that Percentile score = [(B+0.5*E)*100]/N where B is number of scores below the candidate's score (irrespective of candidate's category), E is number of scores equal to candidate's score (irrespective of candidate's category), and N is the total number of candidates appearing for test (irrespective of candidate's category, 6110 for current examination). The formula is also given in the attachment sent along with the email (on page 5), even though it is a textual print and therefore does not show the numerators or denominators of any formula correctly.CWP No.20307 of 2013 -3-
For candidate with overall rank 171, there is a three-way tie of scores with ranks 171, 172 and 173 having the same score. For this candidate, B = 6110 - 173 (because of tie), E = 3 and N= 6110. Therefore the percentile is [(5937+1.5)*100]/6110 = 97.193, and not 97.225 as claimed. The percentile figure has been correctly communicated in the result declared.
For candidate with overall rank184, there is a two-way tie of scores with ranks 184 and 185 having the same score. For this candidate, B = 6110 - 185 (because of tie), E = 2 and N= 6110. Therefore the percentile is [(5925+1)*100]/6110 = 96.988, and not 97.004 as claimed. The percentile figure has been correctly communicated in the result declared.
For candidate with overall rank 211, there is a two-way tie of scores with ranks 211 and 212 having the same CWP No.20307 of 2013 -4- score. For this candidate, B = 6110 - 212 (because of tie), E = 2 and N = 6110. Therefore the percentile is [(5898+1)*100]/6110 = 96.546, and not 96.563 as claimed. The percentile figure has been correctly communicated in the result declared.
As far as your allegation about the non-matching of percentile is concerned, it is stated that the percentile actually matches and this can be verified, provided the mathematical calculations are performed correctly as per the requirements of the percentile formula being used. With regard to the performance of Divya Wangoo (roll no.17688), the percentile calculated by you is totally incorrect. This percentile figure has been conveniently manipulated, and artificially inflated, by using a denominator of 3070 instead of 6110 and stating her rank to be 3319 CWP No.20307 of 2013 -5- (which is actually her category rank) instead of 5466 (her overall rank). As noted above, the overall rank, rather than category rank, is used for all calculations. Her score is tied with another candidate having overall rank 5465. For her, B = 6110
- 5466 = 644, E = 2 and N = 6110.
Hence, the percentile is
[(644+1)*100]/6110 = 10.556, and
not 90.928 as claimed. The percentile figure has been correctly communicated in the result declared, and hence she is not eligible for any counseling session.
As regards your contention that it impossible to evaluate the OMR sheets in the timeframe that we do and that it takes about five minutes to score one OMR sheet. It is submitted that it could be true if each OMR sheet is manually scored but in actual practice the computerized scanner takes a small fraction of the time for the job. PGIMER officials and CWP No.20307 of 2013 -6- staff work meticulously as a team to finalize the result as quickly as possible in their continued presence, without overlooking any step to avoid even minor errors in the marks allotted finally to any individual candidate.
The contention that any student attempting all questions getting the lowest score appears correct, as the final score of such a candidate will be "zero". However, a candidate submitted blank answer sheet will not get the highest score, as his score is also "zero" (score = x/a - y/b, and both x and y are zero in this scenario).
Under the above facts and circumstances, the request made by you cannot be acceded to."
As a matter of fact, the petitioner has not dilated upon the letter dated 30.8.2013 in the writ petition. All that has been alleged is with regard to the calculation based upon Clause 11 of the letter dated 30.8.2013. CWP No.20307 of 2013 -7-
The petitioner has not discussed anywhere in the writ petition the reason which has been given for holding her to be ineligible which is reproduced as under: -
"This percentile figure has been conveniently manipulated, and artificially inflated, by using a denominator of 3070 instead of 6110 and stating her rank to be 3319 (which is actually her category rank) instead of 5466 (her overall rank). As noted above, the overall rank, rather than category rank, is used for all calculations. Her score is tied with another candidate having overall rank 5465. For her, B = 6110
- 5466 = 644, E = 2 and N = 6110.
Hence, the percentile is
[(644+1)*100]/6110 = 10.556, and
not 90.928 as claimed. The percentile figure has been correctly communicated in the result declared, and hence she is not eligible for any counseling session."
Thus, in my considered opinion, in the absence of any explanation given by the petitioner to the reasons CWP No.20307 of 2013 -8- reproduced above, no relief can be given to her in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 13.09.2013 JUDGE Vivek Pahwa Vivek 2013.09.17 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document