Kerala High Court
Rakhi.N.S vs The Union Of India on 17 June, 2016
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/27TH JYAISHTA, 1938
WP(C).No. 3138 of 2016 (N)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
RAKHI.N.S.
D/O NALINAKSHAN, RAJI BHAVAN, GURU NAGAR,
PULIMATH PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA STATE
BY ADVS.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
SRI.MANJUNATH MENON
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT,
SASTHRI BHAVAN, DR. REJENDRA ROAD, NEW DLHI-110 001
2. THE I.I.M AHMADABAD
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR VASTRPUR,
AHMADABAD, GUJARAT-380 015
R1 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASG
BY ADV. SRI.MANU.S, CGC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 17-06-2016,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
bp
WP(C).No. 3138 of 2016 (N)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR COMMON ADMISSION
TEST, 15 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CAT 2015 ACTIVITY SCHEDULE
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF ADMIT CARD FOR APPEARING IN CAT 15
EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF SCREENSHOT OF THE WEBSITE WWW.
PAGALGU.COM
EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF SCREENSHOT OF THE MOBILE PHONE SHOWING
THE THREE MESSAGES DT. 6/8/15 AND 8/1/16
EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF CAT 2015 SCORE AND OF THE PETITIONER
EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF NEWS REPORT APPEARED ON THE WEBSITE
WWW.THEQUINT.COM
EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF NEWS REPORT APPEARED ON THE WEBSITE
HTTP://TIMSOFINDIA.INDIATIMES.COM
EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF NEWS REPORT APPEARED ON THE WEBSITE
HTTP://FITNHIT.COM
EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF NEWS REPORT APPEARED ON THE WEBSITE
HTTP://INDIATODAY.INTODAY.IN
EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF NEWS REPORT APPEARED ON THE WEBSITE
HTTP://WWW.INDI.COM
EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF NEWS ARTICLE APPEARED ON THE WEBSITE
HTTP://DECANCRONICLE.COM
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
bp
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.3138 of 2016
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2016
JUDGMENT
Admission to the management courses offered by the various business schools under the Indian Institute of Management and other reputed Management schools in the country is based on the results of the Common Admission Test. The Common Admission Test is conducted by the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. Ext.P2 is the notification published for the Common Admission Test (CAT 2015). The petitioner had applied for CAT 2015 and she undertook the online examination on the scheduled date. According to the petitioner, the results of CAT 2015 have come out in the websites of private agencies before the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad had officially announced the same. It is alleged that it has come out W.P.(C)No.3138 of 2016 2 in social media that the website of Indian Institute of Management was hacked and it is on account of the reason that the results could be released by other websites prior to the official announcement of the results by the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. It is however, admitted by the petitioner that she received a Short Message Service(SMS) by noon on 8.1.2016, indicating that her score is 50.3. She suspects the genuineness of the score assigned to her. According to her, if the system maintained by the Indian Institute of Management is hacked, then it is possible that the results are also manipulated. It is also alleged by the petitioner that hacking took place in the CAT 2012 examination also. She therefore, approached this Court for a declaration that CAT 2015 examination conducted by the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, viz; the second respondent is vitiated due to hacking. She also seeks directions to the respondents to conduct fresh entrance examination with adequate precautions to prevent hacking.
2. The second respondent has filed a detailed counter W.P.(C)No.3138 of 2016 3 affidavit. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated that on 8.1.2016 morning between 9 a.m and 9.40 a.m, some candidates could see their own marks before the official announcement of the results. It is however stated that no one could see the mark of anybody else. It is further stated that when the said fact was noticed, the website was blocked. In the statement filed by the second respondent, it is asserted that the results were not hacked and were not published in any other websites as alleged. With regard to the possibility of hacking, the averments made in the statement are contained in paragraph 8 of the statement. Paragraph 8 of the statement reads thus:
"8. Averments and apprehensions in paragraphs 12 and 13 are baseless and imaginary. Tata Consultancy Service (TCS) which was providing online support for the entrance test has clarified that for every candidate taking the online examination, TCS has detailed audit trail of every click, every action taken by the candidate with appropriate time stamp, while the candidate is taking the action. The same can be produced whenever required for any scrutiny. Hence there is no possibility of any updation of scores by anybody. The same can be easily verified through the audit trial. No hacking or tampering as alleged/suspected by the petitioner has happened in the results of CAT 2015. It is incorrect to say that the petitioner's complaint was not W.P.(C)No.3138 of 2016 4 considered. The petitioner's complaint was not considered. The petitioner's complaint was addressed on 24.2.2016 and it was clarified that no tampering or hacking was happened."
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the second respondent and the Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.
4. The materials placed before this Court by the petitioner only indicate that the results of the examination were out before the same were officially announced by the second respondent. That fact is not disputed by the second respondent also. It is admitted in the statement filed by the second respondent that some students could know their results between 9 a.m and 9.40 a.m on the day fixed for announcement of the results. The materials available on record are not sufficient to hold that the website of the second respondent was hacked by anyone. On the other hand, convincing reasons have been stated by the second respondent in support of their stand that there was no hacking at all in their website. Merely on the basis of the W.P.(C)No.3138 of 2016 5 disclosures made in the social media, the stand taken by a responsible organization cannot be ignored. Above all, the examinations were conducted during November 2015 and the students have been admitted based on the results of the said examination. There is nothing on record to indicate that any other candidate who participated in CAT 2015 raised grievances of this nature.
The writ petition, in the circumstances, is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
smm