Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anurag Mishra vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 March, 1992
Equivalent citations: AIR1992MP271, AIR 1992 MADHYA PRADESH 271, (1992) JAB LJ 479
JUDGMENT Dr. T.N. Singh, J.
1. By a hair-breadth margin his academic leap is declared foul. Petitioner complains, that is arbitrarily done. In the last Pre-Medical Test, 1991, organised by Professional Examination Board, Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner appeared at the Gwalior Centre and his Roll No. was 609794 in the general category. Admittedly, he secured more than 77% marks and it is also not denied that candidate securing 72.09% marks in the general category has qualified for admission. The quirk of misfortune that was struck the petitioner nestles in his own score: 72, against 75, out of 300 marks, in English. He complains and it is also not disputed, three marks are denied to him as his answer to question No. 99 was found wrong. That indeed is the crux of the controversty to be decided by us in this petition. So far as the legal parameters of our jurisdictional competence to dsecide that is concerned, those are drawn authoritatively in Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, AIR 1983 SC 1230.
2. Law is now well-settled that the key answer when provided as touch-stone for qualifying a candidate in such a test, that is not beyond judicial scrutiny. The only limitation circumscribing our jurisdiction their Lordships held, is that "it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct" the key answer. Scholastic opinion can be garnered ultimately, it has been held, on sifting text books. Evidently, as held by their Lordships, "it would be unfair to penalise a student for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer" if that is demonstrated to be wrong. Because, the students are supposed to apply the knowledge in answering the questions set in such test which they have derived from text books. In such cases, therefore, what is decisive is the weight of authority of the opinion of the textbook writers and benefit of that cannot be denied judicially when a complaint is made to a Writ Court of denial of due academic entitlement arbitrarily on the basis of a wrong answer.
3. In the instant case, reliance is placed by Shri Roman, respondent's counsel, on Rules 2.15 and 2.3 of the Rules framed by the Board. In the return also, it is stated that after the examination is over and before the valuation commences, the "Expert Committee" examines each of the questions and, inter alia, it decides whether the answer proposed by the setter is correct and also decides whether none of the four alternatives suggested is correct or there are more than one correct answers out of the four alternatives. If in any manner, any question is found faulty on any score that question is "cancelled" and each candidate is awarded due marks for that question, namely, three marks. That is the purport of Rule 2.3, while, according to Rule 2.16, the key-answer is made binding and final. We do not think if our jurisdiction to deal with the controversy is barred by these Rules.
4. Samir Gupta's (AIR 1983 SC 1230) (supra), holding according to us, rebuffs effectively Shri Roman's contention based on the Rules aforecited. Writ Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is independently exercisable and that is not affected by any of the Rules, Rule 2.3 or Rule 2.15. Indeed, if the Expert Committee does not discharge its duty contemplated under Rule 2.3 or acts arbitrarily while doing so, this Court can competently examine that question. Again, when any particular candidate whose result is affected by wrong key answer approaches this Court, then also, this Court would possess the jurisdiction to screen the key-answer. Merely because the complaint is by a single candidate and it is not known if the wrong key-answer has actually affected the result of other candidates also, this Court would not be justified in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction to examine the complaint which is relatable to Article 14 of the Constitution. As held in E.P. Royappa, AIR 1974 SC 555, the dynamic concept of equality embraced by Article 14 has many aspects and dimensions, Equality, described is "antithetic to arbitrariness" which it follows that any administrative decision cannot be based on the whim or caprice of the maker. And, as indeed is held in Khudiram (AIR 1975 SC 550) under our Republican Constitution, there is nothing like an unreviewable discretion. If it is found that the kye answer falls foui of the judicial test that "no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard it as correct", it becomes this Court's duty to declare it so and for that the complaint made even by single candidate would give this Writ Court jurisdiction to do so.
5. However, in the instant case, no materials are brought on records by the respondents to suggest that if the key answer is not accepted as the correct answer, result of other candidates who have been declared qualified would be affected adversely. If that position was demonstrated to be actually obtaining, it would have been our duty to hear in this matter the affected candidates. In the instant case, on the other hand, the question is of petitioner losing otherwise his entitlement to be qualified, having secured 77% marks as against 72.09% marks secured by candidate declared qualified. We are required merely to determine if the wrong key answer has resulted in petitioner's losing his entitlement. To do so, we have read no constraint in the Rules aforecited or even in the facts brought before us on records in the pleadings of the parties.
6. With respect to the basic facts concerning the controversy, it is to be stated that Questions Nos. 91 to 100, all relate to the following passage and the Master Question, it is to be pointed out, has signal relevance to the controversy. It reads "Choose the words that fit most appropriately in the blanks provided in the following letter". Although there are two questions in respect to two blanks in one sentence in that passage in our view it is necessary rather to extract the entire passage. Care, is, however, being taken in regard to the proper placing of the Notation 99 in the original, omitting the other notations in respect to the other questions. The passage is as follows:
"I have been planning to write to you about something that has been bothering me for some time. I hope you will not ............. me when I say that I expect my........ to be a little more ......... and understanding. As you very well know, 1 have two school-going children ........... are required to do their homework every night. But they find it difficult to .......
on their studies when they ....... loud music .......... by, our son. We have nothing against your son's taste for music. We only find it a little.......... and especially at night when there is not much of traffic on the ......... As a gesture of good neighbourliness, I would request you to ....... your son either to play the music low, especially in the evenings, or if that is not possible, to go in for a headset with adjustable earphones so that others in the neighbourhood are not disturbed. In fact, I shall be most happy to present him with such a headset,"
Four alternatives as follows, are suggested in regard to that Question (99):
"A. Streets B. highway C. crossroads D. footpath"
7. With the Return filed in this matter on 15-1-1992, Report of the Committee of Experts, Annexure R-I, has come on record. However, that report is not the report or decision contemplated under Rule 2.3, but that is the report which the P. & T. Board (respondent No, 1) commissioned subsequently after petitioner raised his objection in this Court to the-key-answer "B". According to petitioner, the correct answer should be "A" and it is contended that the "most appropriately" the word that will fit in the blank at notation 99 should be "streets", and not "highway". The report is signed by Dr. Pramod B. Lal, Professor of English, Government Arts College, Bhopal, Dr. S. Hamid Hussain, Professor of English, M.V.M. Bhopal and Dr. M. C. Saxena, Professor of English (On deputaion, Director, Vidhan Sabha, Bhopal). However, subsequently, on 25-1-1992, "Grammatical Justification" of the Report has come as Annexure R.-1I. It is signed ony by Dr. P.B. Lal. The occasion for "Justification" is provided by order dated 18-1-1992, wherein we had taken the view that the opinion given by the Committee of Experts did not appear to us prima facie to be satisfactory because the Experts relied mainly on a dictionary to solve a problem which, according to us, was a problem of English grammer. We expressed the view that dictionary does not provide correct and safe guide to the solution of the problem posed in Question No. 99 because that was one of grammer, of syntax and appropriate proposition.
8. In its Report (Annexure R-I), the Committee, wrote as follows :
"The objections raised by the petitioners in paragraphs 7 to 18 of his petition are, by and large, unsubstantiated and do not hold water. The traffic referred to in the test Item (No. 99) is about 'traffic on the .........' As is evident from the documentary proof being supplied herewith, the use of the proposition on is a conclusive proof of '(B) 'highway' being the correct alternative and not '(A) streets', since the preposition that precedes 'streets' is usually 'in' and not 'on' ....... Pragraph 17 presumes that highways do not go through cities or residential areas are not found adjacent to highways. Both these presumptions are erroneous. ...... In the light of the above the proof being provided herewith" is overbearing and conclusive, based as it is on the latest edition of one of the most authentic dictionaries (Oxford Advanced Leaner's Dictionary, A.S. Hornby, Oxford University Press, 1989, p. 588 and 1271)".
9. Subsequently, in the "Justification", Dr. Lal has observed, inter alia, as follows:
" A dictionary, especially a dictionary of usage as has been quoted by the committee, exemplifies the rules laid down, sometimes arbitrarily, by grammer. It is, therefore, in the fitness of things that a dictionary was relied upon to justify the official key....... However, few pages of a standard book of grammer "A University Grammar of English" written by Randoplh Quik, University of London and Syndney Greenbaum of University of Wis-cousin are attached herewith, in which the syntatic functions of prepositional phrases, prepositional meanings and their placings have been dealt with ...... The paper in which the question finds place is a language paper and not a grammar paper. What figures in it is, at best, applied grammar and not pure or theoretical grammar. It is true that language study needs a knowledge of both syntax and lexis. But the question (letter writing) is concerned with lexis or semantics and not syntax. Moreover, the objection raised against the official key is semantic in nature and not syntactic."
10. Although in the "Justification", the learned Professor has taken pains to reiterate the stand of the Committee of Experts and has held legitimate reliance on dictionary, he has very fairly and rightly accepted the position that "language study needs a knowledge of both syntax and lexis', though the paper was not a "Grammar Paper", and it was a "Language Paper". He has dealt with the "objection" to the key-answer raised in this court in the petition filed and has flayed that suggesting, it is "semantic in nature and not syntactic". He is correct, but how the petitioner proposes to view the dispute situation or wants us to resolve it is not the question. We are happy to note that the learned Professor has agreed with the view expressed tentatively by this Court in its order dated 18-1-1992 that knowledge of syntax is part of language-study but we have not been able to appreciate his pedantic view that "the question (letter-writing) is concerned with lexis or semantic and not syntax". That obviously is a hair-splitting argument and does not stand judicial scrutiny. It would be naive to dispute that the "English Paper" was meant for testing the candidate's knowledge in the English language and its communicative norms such as how to write grammatically correct English. We have found ourselves unable to agree with the learned Professor that the question was "letter-writing" because the text extracted above, though it was in the form of a letter, was a prepared one; it was neither composed by the candidate nor was he asked to compose one afresh. His role, in relation to the question, was different and limited; not of an author, in any case. This position is patent, even to a layman.
11. The text book which Prof. Lal has referred in his "Justification" (edited by Randolph Quirk and another) has been submitted for our perusal by the petitioner, who has also submitted 14 other text books, including some dictionaries, for our consideration. Shri Roman, however, handed over to us, "A Practical English Grammar", 3rd Edition, by A.J. Thomson and A. V. Martinet because a photo-copy of an extract therefrom is also annexed to the "Justification" along with one from Randolph Quirk's Book. In that Book, our attention is drawn by counsel to para 85, at p. 77 of Chapter IX, "Prepositions". Learned authors have stated that students mainly have two problems with Prepositions, "whether in any construction a preposition is required or not and which preposition to use when one is required". Para 85 is pairing of a particular set of prepositions; at sub-paras 'A' and 'C "at in"; "in, into"; "on, onto". There is a sentence in sub-para A illustrating the different uses of the alternative -- "If someone is at the station'he could be in the street outside, or in the ticket office/waiting room/restaurant or on the platfrom". With respect to the noun "street", if use of the preposition "on" is prohibited is not stated because the pairing was not between "in" and "on"; it was between "at" and "in". On the other hand, although the pairing at sub-para 'C' is between "on" and "onto" it is stated "on can be used for both position and movement". We do not think if we can read anything in that text book as would suggest that with respect to the noun "street", at no time and under no circumstances, the preposition "on" is not usable. On the contrary, it is sugested that its use is relatable to its object or context -- "for both position and movement", it can be used. In the instant case, in the setence the use of "on" is to convey the idea of movement of traffic.
12. In so far as Randolph Quirk's Book is concerned, with his Note, Prof. Lal has filed an extract from pps. 145to 147. Para6.6deals with "Syntactic functions of prepositional phrases", while para 6.7 with "prepositional Meanings." No doubt that the phrase, "on the streets" is of dimensional type indicating position of the traffic, whether pedestrian or vehicular and in terms of the graphic illustration (Fig. 6.1), heading the para, the word "on" is the appropriate preposition to be used to indicate a particular "position, on a line or surface"; technically it conforms to what is described as "dimension type 1/2". At para 6.7, again, the contest however is between three prepositions, "at", "on" and "in". To be noted importantly, however, is the learned authors* view emphasised by Prof. Lal (portion sidelined at P. 147) that Fig. 6.1 sets out the dimensional orientation of the chief prepositions of the place though, according to the learned authors, "in is capable of being used with objects which are essentially two dimensional". They also opined categrocally, "the contrast between "on (surface") and in ("area") has various implications according to context. This crucial conclusion of the learned authors supports the viw which appealed to us in the very beginning when we aproach-ed the problem from the view point of an average examinee. Following Samir Gupta's (AIR 1983 SC 1230) mandate, we could not, however, refuse parties to place before us rival opinions of text-book writers supposed to support their respective cases to satisfy judicially our conscience in resolving judicially the conflict which we view as one of rights and obligations, in terms of lex lexicon.
13. What can be reasonably expected to be the approach of an average examinee in answering any particular question? We must address ourselves to that question in resolving the conflict. The paper-setter providing the key-answer would be obviously acting subjectively in doing so; the weight of his own perceptions would be evidently decisive in that regard. Obviously, he would not have either the occasion or the inclination to consult too many text-books. It is here that question arises of his duty towards the examinee or of proper discharge of his obligation under the relevant Rules of suggesting a key-answer that would be acceptable not only to a particular body of experts nominated by the P.E. Board, but to the Court in a dispute-situation in terms of Samir Gupta's test. Indeed, the students preparing for the test who may be several hundreds or thousands would have access to several text books available in different parts of the State. Different problems are solved by different text-books writers in different ways. The large body of students consulting different textbooks would grow different attitudes and approaches in dealing with any particular question. In a dispute-situation, therefore, the matter is to be approached from an average examinee's view point. If an academic expert or body of experts ignore this imperative, it would be legitimate for this Court to regard his or yhcir opinion as arbitrary. To guard academic excess or inadequacy of any type, arising from either inadvertence or abras-siveness, it would be the legitimate function of this Court to resolve the dispute approaching it from the correct angle, in order to test the validity of the grievance.
14. Any student of average intelligence who has done his Higher Secondary course cannot be expected to read more meaning into the simple question asking him to choose out of four alternataives the word that fitted "most appropriately" in the "blank" space in the sentence which is to be read as an integral part of the text. The mere fact that the piece of composition was put in the form of a "letter" was hardly of any consequence from his point of view although Prof. Lal has emphasised that as an expert. It is true, the word, a noun, was supposed to match also the preceding prepositional phrase "on the', but para-
mountly it had to match the context. The examinee had to choose not only an "appropriate" " word but which was "most appropriate" to carry, as precisely as possible the idea, meant to be conveyed by the use of that word in the ordained setting. In Roget's Thesaurus (Panguin edition), under the main heading "way" at p. 624, in the sub-heading "road" are included a large number of other alternatives besides the clues offered by the paper-setter -- "highway", "street", "crossroad" and "foot-path". By limiting the choice of the examinee to those four words, the paper-setter obviously required him to keep in view the setting and context though in providing the key-answer he may not have taken due care to be equally precise in that regard. That, indeed, has happened in this case.
15. We find not only much substance in the contention pressed on behalf of the petitioner, but we find it rather unassailable that highways do not always pass through towns or cities and certainly never through residential localities. The use of the word "highway" could not also be appropriate because as will be seen hereinafter, the word has a double meaning, suggesting a route not only on land, but also on water. Even if the question is viewed as a problem of lexis (as suggested by Prof. Lal), there can be no other reasonable conclusion that the word which could "most appropriately" fit in the blank space could be only "street"; and not "highway". We may profitably recall in this context what Lord Wilberforce observed in another context in the celebrated Couriet's case, 1978 AC 435, at p. 483, decided by the House of Lords:
"A right is none the less a right, or a wrong any the less a wrong, because millions of people have a similar right or may suffer a similar wrong".
Our discerning judicial mind and eyes must not fail the petitioner , that must be our utmost concern. If his right we find established, remedy he must have; and relief cannot be refused to him. We can pray for his soul in case any other candidate too has suffered similarly, but that can be no ground to refuse petitioner the relief legally due to him.
16. To conclude, we may examine, however, dictionary meaning of the two words, "street" and "highway" and the weight of authority, to test the argument of the body of experts including Prof. Lal. That will end our exercise undertaken under Samir Gupta's (AIR 1983 SC 1230) (supra) mandate. Before that, we would refer to a statement at p. 11 in the New Webster's Practical English Handbook, 1987 Edn.: "A preposition shows the relationship that exists between certain words in a sentence". Authorities evidently are not wanting to support our view that any problem of appropriate preposition is a problem also of syntax. A passing refernce we may also make to A Communicative Grammar of English, by Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik (ELBS Edn.) pp 82 et seq. The problem of prepositions is approached in the same way in this Book as in Randolph Quirk's and at paras 164 and 166, it is stated that on "On-type prepositions are used to denote the place in terms of length, while "Intype prepositions" in terms of length, width and height. On the same lines is the problem viewed in Practical English Usage, by Michael Swah (QUB, 1980 Edn.) wherein at p. 88, the opinion expressed by the learned author is that although at, in and on are all used to talk about position in space, the context is the safest guide and that generally "on" is used with respect to "surfaces" and "lines". Because the body of experts placed implicit reliance on a single text book, "Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary", to reach the high-pitch conclusion with great emphasis that the illustrative use of the prepositional phrase "in the" with the word "street" was conclusive of the controversy, we have referred to these authorities, predicating the negative effectively. To p, 157 in writing: Communicative Activities in English, by Christina Bratt Paulston, Robert T, Hender-son and others, (1988 edn.), reference may also be made. The way of writing a sentence y use of adverbs of manner is illustrated. One sentence is -- "She always drives (in a slow way) on residential streets.
17. We refer now to Fowler's Modern English Usage (ELBS edn.), p. 828, giving the etymological meaning for the word "street" -- "a road in town or village comparatively wide as opposed to lane or alley, running between two lines of houses or shops". However, in Michael Swan's Pratical English Usage, at p. 539, though it is also stated that a "street" is "road with houses on either sides", but it is added further that the "word is used for roads in towns and not for country roads. In Oxford Concise Dictionary (Student edn.), at p. 827, with "streets", use of the prepositional phrase, "on the" is recommended; ibid, p. 565 the word "highway" is said to mean, "public road (often the king's way), main route bvland or water". In Chambers English Dictionary, 1988 Edn., at p. 671, the same meaning is given to "highway" indicating that the word is applicable in respect not only to a "road" or "path", but also to a "navigable river". However, the distinction between a "road", "street" and a "highway" is brought about more clearly in Lexicon Universal Encyclopaedia (Lexicon Publications, New York, 1987 Edn.), Vol 16, p. 234: "a road is generally a narrow route in a rural area; a street is an urban route; and a highway is a wide road that can carry more traffic at higher speeds". In New Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (College Edition 1988), at p. 1513, the "street" is said to mean "a road or thoroughfare in a city having buildings on one or both sides" and indeed illustratively, it is stated "the people who live on the street".
18. It is rather unfortunate, we must say so in discharge of our constitutional duty, that the body of experts on whose opinion the respondents have relied to support their stand, have overlooked the fact that under no circumstances, a word carrying a dubious meaning could be accepted as a correct key-answer to the question which beged as an answer the "most appropriate" word. The weight of authorities, discussed above, indicate that in the context and setting the word "street" (and not "highway") is the word which "most appropriately" fits in the sentence. No reasonable body or person well-versed in English language would suggest as correct answer, the word "highway" carrying the dubious meaning, of a route which may be either on land or on water. Otherwise too, the word "highway" would not carry the sense contemplated in the setting depicted to achieve the desired purpose of the letter. It is indeed a letter written to fellow-resident in the "neighbourhood" Comprising a residential area. It is a environmental complaint, meant to interdict noise-polution demanding accurate description of the locality. The use of the word "highway" may deflect from those purposes, making the complaint inadequate in substance. Because existence of a "highway" in such a "neighbourhood" is inconceivable. We have found it impossible to shut our eyes to the glaring flaw in the opinion of the body of experts who failed on the one hand to keep in view the sharp distinction between the two words "street" and "highway" even while treating the problem as one of lexis and on the other hand, found it unnecessary to give due importance to the context, setting and the purpose of the letter.
19. Reliance is placed by Shri Roman on this Court's D.B. decision in Anjali Saxena's case 1990 MPLJ 80 : (AIR 1990 Madh Pra 253); but we do not think on facts, the ratio thereof would apply to the instant case. Indeed, always, in all cases, all courts in India, are bound by the supreme mandate in Samir Gupta's case (AIR 1983 SC 1230) (supra) and that was, therefore, cited also in Anjali Saxena's case and dutifully followed. About that decision, it is necessary for us to observe only this much that this Court was not required in that case to examine judicially the mechanics of the exercise of the body of experts and the taint in their opinion. Whether any academic inadequacy or excess resulted in arbitrary denial of petitioner's entitlement, was not the point agitated or decided. Petitioner was short of 12 marks and she insisted that key-answers to three questions of Botany paper were wrong. Her reliance on the text books she submitted to support her contention was found not justified. On the other hand, the opinion of the body of experts with respect to the analysis of the views expressed in the text books relied on by the petitioner was found correct and flawless; the contrary position obtains in this case.
20. For all the foregoing reasons, we do not have an iota of hesitation to hold the petitioner entitled to a mandamus and that we issue without further ado. We direct the respondents to declare the petitioner duly qualified. We hold that he is entitled to three marks denied to him against question No. 99 and as such, we hold further that he has duly passed the English paper having obtained 75 marks in that paper.
21. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed, but we leave parties to bear their own costs.