Rishabh Saxena & Others vs . State Of Rajasthan & Others on 26 June, 2014

[Cites 8, Cited by 8]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Rishabh Saxena & Others vs . State Of Rajasthan & Others on 26 June, 2014

Bench: Mohammad Rafiq

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

ORDER
IN
1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7040/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6340/2014

Rishabh Saxena & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others

2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6973/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6287/2014

Amit Kumar Saini & Others Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6838/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6198/2014

Prashant Gautam Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Another

4. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6848/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6205/2014

Nawab Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others

5. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6914/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6250/2014

Megha Sharma & Others Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Another

6. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6972/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6286/2014

Saloni Ghiya & Another Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Another

7. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7006/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6318/2014

Ankur Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another

8. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7047/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6347/2014

Hans Raj Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others

9. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7048/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6348/2014

Jai Ram Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others

10. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7055/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6353/2014

Radhika Chaturvedi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others

11. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7056/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6354/2014

Mohit Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others

12. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7057/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6376/2014

Manjeeta & Others Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

13. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7076/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6373/2014

Vishweta Yadav Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Another

14. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7077/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6374/2014

Ashwini Gautam & Others Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

15. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7084/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6381/2014

Nalin Dadhich & Another Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

16. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7085/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6383/2014

Anviti Gupta Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Another

17. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7086/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6382/2014

Kiran Kumawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others

18. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7107/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6402/2014

Chitra Togra & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others

19. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7109/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6404/2014

Arun Singh Nitharwal & Others Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

20. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7111/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6406/2014

Prachi Goyal Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Another

21. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7132/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6417/2014

Mohita Singh Gaur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others

22. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7133/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6418/2014

Prashant Sharma & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others

23. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7134/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6419/2014

Yamini Sharma & Another Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

24. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7135/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6420/2014

Sanjay Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others

25. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7150/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6434/2014

Ayush Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others

26. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7151/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6435/2014

Shefali Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others

27. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7152/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6436/2014

Arvind Singh Hada Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others

28. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7153/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6437/2014

Ankush Bansal Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

29. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7154/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6438/2014

Niyati Kalla & Others Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Others

30. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7167/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6451/2014

Aditya Kshetrapal Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

31. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7169/2014(D)
with
Stay Application No. 6453/2014

Kopal Shrivastava Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

32. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7173/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6456/2014

Priyanjali Agarwal Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

33. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7174/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6457/2014

Prakhar Srivastava Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

34. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7175/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6458/2014

Komal Singh Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

35. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7215/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6501/2014

Akshat Saxena Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

36. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7216/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6502/2014

Sneha Gupta Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

37. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7217/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6503/2014

Chirag Mittal Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

38. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7218/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6504/2014

Neelam Choudhary Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

39. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7219/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6505/2014

Archana Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

40. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7220/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6506/2014

Monika Choudhary Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

41. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7221/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6507/2014

Palak Mamodia Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

42. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7222/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6508/2014

Rohit Ojha Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

43. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7223/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6509/2014

Pawan Kumar Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

44. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7224/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6510/2014

Ayushi Jain Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

45. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7225/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6511/2014

Jitendra Sharma Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

46. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7226/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6512/2014

Shikhar Shubham Arora Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

47. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7227/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6513/2014

Dinesh Bishnoi Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

48. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7228/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6514/2014

Aashish Kumar Mahant Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

49. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7229/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6515/2014

Jatin Jain Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

50. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7230/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6516/2014

Ekta Roy Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

51. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7231/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6517/2014

Amita Nitharwal Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

52. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7232/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6518/2014

Pawan Kumar Yadav Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Another

53. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7233/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6519/2014

Himani Acharya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others

54. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7234/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6521/2014

Manu Shankar Sharma Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

55. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7235/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6522/2014

Kritika Joshi Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

56. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7236/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6523/2014

Imamuddin Khan Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

57. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7237/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6524/2014

Akansha Punia Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

58. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7238/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6525/2014

Yogesh Verma Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

59. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7239/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6526/2014

Mohd Adil Sameja & Others Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

60. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7240/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6527/2014

Yati Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others

61. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7241/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6528/2014

Nipun Makkar & Another Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

62. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7266/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6550/2014

Akshita Ghiya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others

63. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7267/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6551/2014

Viny Bhardwaj Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Others

64. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7268/2014
with
Stay Application No. 6552/2014

Vijayee Shri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others

Date of Order ::: 26.06.2014

Present
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq, VJ.

Shri R.B. Mathur, Shri R.P. Saini, Shri Tanveer Ahmed, Shri Vijay Poonia, Shri S.C. Gupta, Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Shri Ram Babu Sharma, Shri Achintya Kaushik, Shri Yogendra Singh, Shri Vigyan Shah, Ms. Sunita Vashistha, Shri Amit Gupta, Shri Pradeep Kalwania with Smt. Sushila Kalwania, Shri Peush Nag, Shri Shovit Jhajharia, Ms. Rashmi Jain, Shri A.C. Upadhayay, Shri Ashok Yadav, Shri M.S. Raghav, Shri Mahesh Chand Gupta, Shri L.M. Bhardwaj, Shri Harendra Singh Sinsinwar, Shri Anuroop Singhi, Shri Sanjay Mehrishi, Shri Kamlesh Sharma)
Shri Iliyas Khan) for the petitioners.

Shri N.M. Lodha, (Sr. Advocate), Advocate General with Shri Sheetanshu Sharma, Shri Vishal Sharma, Shri S.K. Gupta, Addl. Advocate General with Shri Gaurav Tanwar) for State.

Shri M.A. Khan with with Shri Akbar Khan, for the respondent-RUHS.
Shri Prateek Mathur for respondents
####

//Reportable//

By the Court:-

All these writ petitions have been preferred by students desirous of seeking admission to MBBS course in different medical colleges of the State of Rajasthan. All the petitioners appeared in the Rajasthan Pre Medical Test 2014 (for short, 'the RPMT') conducted by respondent Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (for short, 'the respondent- University') in six slots from 28th to 30th of May, 2014. While one set of writ petitioners, who could not qualify the RPMT, have approached this court with the prayer that the aforesaid examination held by the respondent-University be declared illegal and respondents be directed to hold fresh examination, another set of writ petitioners, who have been declared successful, have approached this court seeking a direction to the respondents to adhere to the time schedule for admission as originally notified and refrain from cancelling the whole examination, and if necessary compensate the candidates for questions that were deleted or were having wrong answers.

During pendency of these writ petitions, however, some of the affected candidates approached the State Government alleging various irregularities in the examination. The State Government, by its order dated 10.06.2014, constituted a Committee of experts to look into the grievance of such students. The Committee submitted its report to the Government on 15.06.2014. The Government, on consideration of aforesaid report and various other factors, finally, by its order dated 17.06.2014, decided to hold fresh examination. In view, however, of the schedule of time laid down by the Supreme Court in its order dated 19.05.2014 to complete the first round of counselling by 25.06.2014, and fixing 03.07.2014 as the last date for the students to join the allotted colleges, the Government filed an Interlocutory Application No.10/2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.737/2013 - Lipika Gupta and Another Vs. Union of India and Others, inter-alia with the prayer that the order dated 19.05.2014 be modified permitting the State Government and the respondent-University to conduct the RPMT for the academic Session 2014-15 as per the revised time schedule proposed in Para 25 of that application so as to complete the entire exercise of admission up to 30th September, 2014, as originally fixed in that order. When the aforesaid Interlocutory Application came up for hearing on 23.06.2014, the Supreme Court was informed about the pendency of these writ petitions before this Court. Their Lordships were pleased to pass the following order:-

This application has been moved by the State of Rajasthan as well as the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences for partial modification of the order passed on 19th May, 2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.737 of 2013 and other connected Writ Petitions.

Briefly stated, by that Order, this Court has set down a schedule for commencement and completion of Examination as well as Counselling. It has been found that out of 1200 questions, 86 questions were found to be incorrect in the On-line Examination conducted for the present Academic Year. The applicants contend that there is widespread unrest amongst the candidates since they feel that in spite of moderation by the equipercentile method, the results are not fair to all students. We are also informed that there are 33 Writ Petitions pending before the High Court of Rajasthan and the hearing is scheduled for tomorrow i.e. 24th June, 2014. The difficulty which is anticipated on behalf of the applicants is that the High Court may come to the opinion that it is faced with a fate accompli, inasmuch as the counselling dates already ordained by this Court would deter the High Court from passing any order on the Writ Petitions as that would tantamount to interfering with or modifying the Schedule laid down by this Court.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we think the most expedient and appropriate orders to pass would be to direct the High Court to consider the Writ Petitions undeterred by the Schedule laid down by this Court in the Order dated 19th May, 2014. Keeping in view the urgency in the matter, we request High Court to decide the Writ Petitions on or before 27th June, 2014.

Re-notify I.A. No.10/2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.737/2013 along with Writ Petition (Civil) No.737/2013 on 30th June, 2014, already fixed.

Pursuant to decision of the Board of Management of the respondent-University, the Registrar of the respondent-University, by order dated 04.12.2013, constituted a core committee with Dr. P.K. Jain as its Chairman. The core committee in its meeting dated 15.03.2014 decided to hold On-line examination with two sessions every day. It was decided to give equal weightage to each subject of Physics, Chemistry, Botany and Zoology. Result was to be declared on applying equipercentile formula. The approval of the State Government was sought in this behalf. A letter was sent by the Registrar of the respondent-University to the Government on 18.03.2014 to the above effect. The Government, vide letter dated 29.03.2014, conveyed that the respondent-University was competent to take decisions at its own level. The matter was then taken up in the 62nd meeting of the Board of Management on 02.04.2014. In principle approval was granted to the proposal of holding On-line examination in six cities, namely, Jaipur, Jodhpur, Ajmer, Kota, Bikaner and Udaipur in multiple sessions and declare result after applying equipercentile method. It was thereupon that the respondent-University issued/published notification No.1/14 in all leading newspapers of the State on 09.04.2014 inviting on-line applications from eligible candidates from 10th April, 2014 to 3rd May, 2014 for admission to MBBS course by way of RPMT. Total number of 44833 candidates submitted applications for appearing in the RPMT Examination-2014, however, only 41911 candidates actually appeared in the examination. This was intended to be a common examination for admission to MBBS, BDS, Bachelor in Pharma and Diploma in Pharma.

The examination for RPMT, as already noted above, was held in two slots each on 28th, 29th and 30th of May, 2014, thus in total six slots. Examination paper consisted of 200 objective type questions carrying four marks each with 50 questions divided into four subjects viz - Physics, Chemistry, Botany and Zoology. The answer keys of the question papers of all six lots were uploaded on the website of the respondent-University on 30.05.2014, and objections of the candidates were invited up to 5.00 pm of the following day i.e. 31.05.2014. Total 103 grievances were received by the grievance committee, comprising of two experts under the Chairmanship of Pro-Vice-Chancellor. On examination thereof, the committee found 60 questions either wrongly framed or having wrong options or wrong translation from English to Hindi. The Grievance Committee decided to award four bonus marks for each wrong answer. Besides, the committee noted that 62 questions were correct but their options in the answer-key were incorrect. Before, however, declaring the result, the respondent-University discussed the matter with the Principal Secretary to the Government in its Department of Medical Education, who advised to again invite objections. The respondent-University again published revised answer-key on 03.06.2014 inviting objections till 12.00 noon on 04.06.2014. This time, the Committee received as many as 374 grievances.

The grievance committee thus found total 86 number of questions disputed in all six lots out of 1200 questions, either due to having wrong answers or wrong framing or wrong translation from English to Hindi, for which it initially decided to grant bonus marks. Moreover, the grievance committee decided to correct the answer/option of 62 additional questions in the answer-key, and accordingly awarded marks for the correct option. When the meeting of the core committee was convened on 05.06.2014, it was informed by the Convener that the Government has directed that in place of bonus marks for wrong questions, it would be appropriate to calculate the score after deleting the wrong questions and proportionately increase the marks on that basis so as to have maximum marks out of 800. The core committee accordingly declared the result by eliminating 86 questions and proportionately enhancing the marks of each candidate in the concerned slot as per his performance on the basis of remaining questions. It was thereafter that the respondent-University applied the equipercentile score method and published the result on 05.06.2014.

Shri R.B. Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the unsuccessful candidates, argued that the entire process of examination was marred by large scale irregularities and inadequate infrastructure. The petitioners and other students were provided two sheets in the examination center on which their raw marks were mentioned. While one sheet was meant for official use, another sheet was student's copy, but it was not given to the students. Several questions were either incorrectly framed/formulated or were out of syllabus or had multiple number of correct options or no correct option at all, or incorrect options were taken as correct or were out of syllabus. Despite deleting some of the questions and correcting options in respect of some other, number of questions being quite large, the fairness of the selection was adversely affected and merit was casualty. Learned counsel in this connection has referred to slot-wise bifurcation of deleted incorrect questions and argued that while in some of the slots, the number of questions that were deleted and had wrong options, were quite high. In others, it was quite low. This has reflected in the overall merit of the candidates declared successful. This has also been acknowledged by the committee of experts set up by the Government. In this connection, learned counsel has referred to the report of the expert committee dated 15.06.2014, which has noted that while in one slot approximately 75% of the candidates were selected, in another slot, none was selected. It is argued that when the enquiry committee constituted by the State Government has found substance in the complaints of the students, admissions ought not to be made on the basis of such tainted process of examination.

Shri R.B. Mathur, learned counsel submitted that transparency was not maintained in the process of examination. The method of equalization of the marks has not been disclosed. The equipercentile method adopted by the respondent-University has given rise to unjust and inequitable results. The students who obtained more raw marks have been placed lower in merit than those who obtained lesser marks. The learned counsel in this connection referred to such instances given in para 3(L) of the Writ Petition No.7040/2014 filed by Rishabh Saxena. It is argued that slots were allotted to the candidates at the whims of the respondent-University. It was neither in alphabetical order nor on first-come-first-serve basis. Same was the case with the allotment of examination centers. The private agency hired by the respondent-University refused to even explain the efficacy and procedure of equipercentile method adopted by them to the expert committee set up by the Government. The successful candidates therefore cannot be allowed to take shelter of the time schedule fixed by the Supreme Court to justify a wrongful process of examination. The only way by which this wrong can be remedied is to hold fresh examination on the basis of common question paper at one go.

Shri Vijay Poonia, another learned counsel for petitioners, who remained unsuccessful in the said examination, submitted that information-booklet supplied to the candidates categorically stipulated that there shall be 200 objective type questions with 50 questions each in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Botany and Zoology. Every question would carry the value of four marks. Each question had four options to answer. There was no negative marking. Therefore, it is evident that equal weightage was to be given to the four subjects, namely, Physics, Chemistry, Botany and Zoology. Out of total 86 questions that were deleted, 14 questions were deleted in the subject of Chemistry, whereas total 38 questions were deleted in the subject of Biology and 34 questions were deleted in the subject of Physics. Unequal deletion of question in each subject has resulted in destruction of equilibrium and equality amongst different subjects. Resultant effect is that the fairness of the whole process of examination has been destroyed. Besides, learned counsel argued that in each subject again, there are different topics/streams. For example, in the subject of Chemistry, there are different streams, such as inorganic, organic, physical chemistry etc. If more number of questions are deleted in single stream, then it certainly disturbs the inter-se ratio of questions to be included from every part of the syllabus. Learned counsel argued that mass scale inaccuracies/defects in the questions has affected the fairness of the examination in the sense that if a candidate has devoted more time to a particular subject and especially to certain questions, which have been wrongly framed or had wrong options, the time available at his disposal to attempt other subjects/questions stood reduced and thereby a grave prejudice has been caused to him. Learned counsel further argued that after the petitioner Yati Singh in Writ Petition No.7240/2014 pressed the 'finish' button on the computer set, 512 score was displayed as her raw marks on the computer screen, whereas only 424 raw marks were displayed on the website and on that basis she was awarded 454.5 as corrected raw score and 498.33 equated score. No reason has been given for such discrepancy.

Shri Shiv Charan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners who also remained unsuccessful, has argued that the irregularities in the examination conducted by the respondent-University has taken place largely because it has chosen to hire a private agency to conduct the examination, whereas option was available to it to hire government agency like IIT, Bangalore. The very fact that the respondents themselves have admitted that large number of questions in different slots in almost every subject were incorrect and therefore deleted them or changed their options/answers, demonstrate that examination was unfair and illegal. It is argued that equipercentile formula is identical to scaling, which could be applied only if there were different paper setters, different examiners and different subjects, which is not the case here because all the candidates were subjected to examination on common syllabus in the same subject, there being same paper setter. Learned counsel in support of his argument, has relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh and Another Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Another - (2007) 3 SCC 720.

Learned counsel referring to computer generated RPMT 2014 Result (Provisional) of petitioner Ankush Bansal in Writ Petition No.7153/2014, which is annexed as Annexure-2, submitted that the result shows that his displayed raw score was 636 and corrected raw score (out of 800) after redressal of grievance, was 667.36, how his equipercentile score became 98.027 when the equated score was 645.88 is not clear. Therefore, he has wrongly been denied admission.

Shri Tanveer Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for unsuccessful candidates, submitted that despite the respondents deleting 86 incorrect/wrong questions and changing the options in respect of 62 questions, many more discrepancies are still persisting in the question papers. Many such questions, which are out of syllabus, have yet not been deleted. Learned counsel argued that result of the first batch of 28.05.2014 is based on 193 questions, and of second batch of 28.05.2014, on 187 questions. The result of first batch of 29.05.2014 is based on 176 questions, whereas result of second batch of 29.05.2014 is based on 192 questions. The result of first batch of 30.05.2014 is based on 183 questions and of its second batch, on 183 questions, which is contrary to the guidelines provided in the instruction booklet.

It was argued that certain question papers were carrying comparatively more number of simpler questions and certain others were having tough questions. This wrong cannot be remedied by adopting equipercentile method to achieve the uniform evaluation of merit as mandated by clause (5) of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Examinations, 1997. Learned counsel also cited the notification dated 21.12.2010 vide which Clause 5 of the Regulations of Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 2010, has been amended to provide for a single national eligibility cum entrance examination for admission to MBBS course. Learned counsel for petitioners relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. and Others Vs. Gopal D Tirthani and Others - (2003) 7 SCC 83, wherein the Supreme Court held that it is not permissible to hold separate entrance examination for admission to medical PG Study Course of open and in-service categories of candidates. It was therefore held that there should be one common entrance test.

Learned counsel further argued that the respondents have also not adopted the same formula for calculating the percentile because in the first batch of 28.05.2014, 1% has been treated as 7.72, second batch of 28.05.2014, 1% as 7.48, first batch of 29.05.2014, 1% as 7.04 and the second batch of 29.05.2014, 1% as 7.68, and first batch of 30.05.2014, 1% as 7.32 and second batch of 30.05.2014, 1% as 7.32, for applying the formula. Meaning thereby that for every deleted question four marks are reduced and the calculation is made on the basis of remaining questions and the same has been converted into percentile. This has created shadow of suspicion about the ghostly result of examination for admission to prestigious MBBS course.

Shri Pradeep Kalwania, learned counsel also appearing for unsuccessful candidates, submitted that some of the questions which were correct, have been wrongly deleted. The candidate, who had 620 raw marks, has been shown at 1154 rank, whereas a candidate having 548 marks has been shown at 346 rank. The revised answer-key issued by the respondent-University itself contains 13 wrong answers. Some of the questions, which were correct, have also been wrongly deleted. The expert committee, which was constituted by the Government itself, was defective in the sense that it did not have the experts as member. The respondents have adopted different yardsticks for deleting or not deleting the questions on the basis of incorrect Hindi translation of English questions. For example, question no.52 in slot no.2 of 28.05.2014 was correctly attempted by the petitioner Hans Raj Yadav in Writ Petition No.7047/2014 as per the English version, which answer has wrongly been treated as incorrect by the respondents.

Shri Ram Pratap Saini, another learned counsel for the petitioners who also remained unsuccessful, submitted that as per the order of the Government dated 23.05.2014, the raw marks as displayed on the computer screen at the time of pressing 'finish' button, were required to be jointly signed by the student and invigilator and supplied to the students, but this direction was not followed anywhere. Petitioner Yamini Sharma in Writ Petition No.7134/2014 had secured 596 marks as displayed on the computer screen at the time when she pushed the 'finish' button but when the result was announced, she was wrongly shown to have secured only 537 marks and it was on that basis that she was further awarded the equalized marks.

In another set of writ petitions filed by successful candidates, Shri S.K. Singh, learned counsel for petitioners, has vehemently opposed the stand of the Government that the examination should be held afresh. He argued that there was no irregularity or unfairness in the process of examination. The committee appointed by the Government has not found any such illegality in the examination process that may warrant cancellation of the entire examination. If that is permitted to be done, preparation made by the candidates for a long period of time for appearing in the examination would go waste. The efforts, energy and resources put in by the respondent-University would also go in vain. Even the expert committee appointed by the Government has not found any allegation of mala-fide, malpractices, copying, leakage etc. so as to justify the decision of the Government. An examination can be cancelled only on these considerations. Learned counsel argued that no prejudice has been caused to any of the candidates by deletion of some of the questions because their performance has been evaluated on the basis of actual marks awarded after deletion of questions and they have been further awarded equated marks on such performance and only thereafter the equipercentile formula has been applied. Learned counsel submitted that the decision to apply equipercentile formula was taken by the core committee of the respondent-University with due approval of the State Government and a Note on Statistical Equating Procedure was duly displayed on the website of the respondent-University, informing that such practice is adopted in many computer based examinations, both in India and other parts of the world. Statistical equating in a test scoring addresses the issues of differing difficulty levels across questions paper sets. Equating adjusts for differences in difficulty so that scores can be used interchangeably. This was informed to the candidates well in advance. Reference in this connection is made to the letter of the Government dated 23.05.2014 addressed to the Registrar of the respondent-University. In para 3 thereof it was observed that 'Raw Score' shall not be considered as final marks for merit purpose, as this is likely to change during the process of equalization. Learned counsel also referred to information-booklet supplied to the candidates, which contains a stipulation to the effect that allotment of seats to successful candidates shall be strictly in accordance with the merit list on the basis of equipercentile score of RPMT-2014.

Learned counsel thus argued that unsuccessful candidates having appeared in the RPMT-2014 examination with full knowledge of the fact that the result would be prepared on the basis of equipercentile formula, are now estopped from questioning the correctness of the same. For the same reason therefore the State Government having itself permitted the respondent-University to go ahead with the equipercentile formula, cannot now be permitted to go back on its stand and take a somersault. Learned counsel submitted that if only 7.1% out of 1200 questions, are found to be incorrect, that does not affect the fairness of the selection as marks of all the candidates depending on number of deleted questions have been proportionately enhanced and no one was put to loss on that count. The examination thus does not suffer from any unfairness. Even if now the examinations are held afresh, there is no guarantee that no new litigation would crop up.

Learned counsel alleged that Ishan Sharma is son of Shri Rajesh Sharma, who was one of the members of the committee submitting the report dated 15.06.2014. Ishan Sharma had appeared in the examination and therefore Shri Rajesh Sharma was biased and he in any case wanted the examination to be cancelled. No one can be a judge in his own cause. His participation in the proceedings of the committee has vitiated the entire process. Learned counsel argued that conducting the examination by hiring private agency, is not uncommon. Outsourcing is done even when the recruitment and the examinations for the purpose of admission and recruitment are held by the Government, its instrumentalities and various Universities. So long as it is not shown that there was any undue favour, mass copying, leakage of papers or otherwise any highhandedness in the conduct of the examination, examination for that reason alone cannot be held to be tainted. Learned counsel argued that equipercentile formula is applied to all such examinations where candidates are subjected to examinations in different slots having different difficulty levels. It is adopted with a view to neutralizing that factor and equalizing the disparity of marks. Only because few hundred candidates have approached the Government, the Government for political consideration should not be permitted to scrap the entire examination at its whims as this is likely to bring a bad name to the State.

Shri S.K. Singh, learned counsel further argued that many of the successful candidates were selected elsewhere also but after the result declared by the respondent-University, they being under the impression that they would be granted admission to MBBS course in Medical Colleges of the State, have left the choices available in other medical colleges. If at this stage now the examination is permitted to be cancelled, grave prejudice would be caused to them. It is further argued that when the respondent-University has been specifically constituted for the purpose of medical education, there is no justification for the Government to contend that it might entrust the responsibility of holding fresh examination to another University.

Learned counsel cited judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others (2013) 4 SCC 690, and argued that in that case the Supreme Court held that where it cannot be said that the candidates contributed to the preparation of the erroneous key or the distorted result or committed any fraud or adopted malpractices in the examination process, the efforts should be made to save the process of examination. Learned counsel also cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Limited Vs. State of Uttranchal and Others 2007 (7) Supreme 656, wherein it was held that executive discretion is not absolute, unqualified, unfettered or uncanalised and judiciary has control over all executive actions. Every action of the public authority must be based on utmost good faith, genuine satisfaction and ought to be supported by reason and rationale. It is therefore not only the power but the duty of the Court to ensure that all authorities exercise their powers properly, lawfully and in good faith. The State Government in the present case has taken an absolutely arbitrary and capricious decision in deciding to scrap the entire exercise of examination and to hold the fresh one. Decision of the Government should therefore be quashed and set aside and respondents be directed to make admission on the basis of RPMT-2014 examination already held.

Per contra, Shri N.M. Lodha, learned Advocate General appearing for the State argued that the conduct of PMT examination was the domain of the State Government and when it was decided not to hold the national eligibility cum entrance test following judgment of the Supreme Court, the Government by its letter dated 10.3.2014 addressed to its Registrar entrusted the task of conducting RPMT-2014 to respondent-university. When however the result of the examination was declared, there was wide spread resentment and unrest among the students as well as their parents. It was therefore that the Government by order dated 10.06.2014 set up a Committee of experts to go into all such grievances. The Expert Committee in their report dated 15.6.2014 found certain irregularities. The Government had two options, either to go ahead with the same process of examination and make admission on that basis or to hold fresh examination. The Government on careful analysis of the matter, found the examination conducted by the University to be not in conformity with clause 5 of the MCI Regulations, 1997. The Government as well as the respondent-university therefore jointly filed an interlocutory application before the Supreme Court in Lipika Gupta, supra seeking permission to slightly deviate from the time schedule laid down therein.

The learned Advocate General argued that the sole concern of the Government is to ensure admissions to MBBS course strictly on the basis of merit and the guiding principle therefor is clause-5, supra, which inter alia provides that the selection of students to medical colleges should be based solely on merit and for that purpose, a competitive entrance examination should be held so as to achieve a uniform evaluation as there may be variation of standards of qualifying examinations conducted by different agencies. Holding of examination in different slots has eventually resulted in variation of standards specifically forbidden by the MCI Regulations. It was therefore that the Government decided to conduct a fresh examination on paper based methodology using OMR sheet in single session of three hours duration in six major cities with equal weightage to Physics, Chemistry, Botany and Zoology. Owing to the demerits and drawbacks of the equipercentile formula, the Government also decided to declare the result in terms of the actual percentile of marks obtained by the candidates rather than in terms of percentile, though at the same time, it decided not to have any negative marking.

Learned Advocate General submitted that when the Government in extraordinary circumstances of the case and peculiar exigencies of the situation, has taken an in-principle conscious decision to hold fresh examination for all the aforementioned reasons, this Court ought not to interfere with such well meaning decision of the Government. To buttress his argument, learned Advocate General relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in B. Ramanjini & Ors. vs. State of A.P. & Ors.- (2002) 5 SCC 533. As regards the allegation against Rajesh Sharma, one of the Members of the Committee, the learned Advocate submitted that neither he has been impleaded as party, nor any specific affidavit or pleading to that effect has been filed/made by any of the petitioners. There is no case of bias on his part. Even if it is accepted that his son appeared and failed in the examination, there is no case of bias as the Committee has not given any specific finding. It has rather left the matter to be considered by the Government on various aspects. Besides him, there were three more Members. The Committee merely suggested that the Government should get the equipercentile method reviewed from a Committee of statistical experts. Apart from the report of the Committee, the Government had its own independent inputs and examined the record in its entirety and thereafter took the decision after due diligence. There is no case of any mala-fide or bias as the decision of the Government is intended to ensure justice and fair play to all.

Shri S.K. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, adopting the arguments made by learned Advocate General, argued that large number of students felt aggrieved by the ultimate result of the RPMT-2014 because out of 1200 questions, total 86 questions were incorrectly formulated or were out of syllabus and thereafter deleted and 62 had wrong answers, which were corrected. Number of such questions varied in different batches/slots and, therefore, despite adoption of equalization and equipercentile method, these mistake did impact upon the fairness of the ultimate result of examination.

Learned Additional Advocate General though submitted that there is nothing substantial placed on record or otherwise before the Expert Committee suggesting any malpractice, mala-fide, impersonation, corruption, leakage of question paper etc. but looking to the extent of discrepancies/inaccuracies and the impact it would have on the ultimate result, the Government with a view to ensuring that selection was made on merit alone after uniform evaluation, did not find the equipercentile system to be just, fair and reasonable. In order to therefore resolve the entire controversy and avoid confusion, it has, after due diligence, decided to held fresh examination at one go.

Learned Additional Advocate General refuted the allegations of the successful candidates that the decision was based on any political consideration. It was, in fact, intended to inspire confidence about credibility of the system among the youth.

Shri M.A. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-university has submitted that though the RUHS had been assigned the task to hold the examination by the State Government and, therefore, when the Government has decided to hold fresh examination, it has co-jointly with the Government filed the interlocutory application before the Supreme Court, but to put the records straight, it has filed its independent reply to the writ petitions to demonstrate that it has conducted the examination in most independent and efficient manner. The questions that were found to be incorrect were deleted with the approval of the Government inasmuch as the options of some of the questions were also changed with the approval of the Government. In fact, the decision to adopt equipercentile method and to hold the examination on line was also made with due approval of the Government. In this connection, learned counsel has referred to the communication dated 18.3.2014 addressed to the Government by the Registrar of the University and the reply thereto sent by the Government dated 29.3.2014. Learned counsel also referred to the decision of the 62nd Board of Management meeting dated 2.4.2014 at agenda item no.1 which, apart from others, was also attended by the Principal Secretary to the Government in its department of Medical Education. In that meeting, it was decided to hold on line examination and also apply equipercentile formula. It was on that basis that the candidates were notified in the information booklet about holding on line examination for preparation of merit and the intended applicability of equipercentile formula. Since as many as 44833 candidates had applied for appearing in the examination, it was not possible to conduct the on line examination for all of them in one shift due to non-availability of such large number of computer systems and other infrastructure. The respondent-university therefore decided to conduct the examination in six shifts/slots in three days. The difficulty level of different question papers was bound to be different from one another and therefore in order to neutralize that factor, the university adopted the equipercentile equating method to equalize the scores of the candidates. The raw marks of the candidates were converted into percentile marks. The RPMT-2012 was also conducted on same pattern in three shifts.

Shri M.A. Khan, learned counsel submitted that the other reputed institutions like Staff Selection Commission, Railway Recruitment Board, Central Auditor General, Hindustan Aeronautical Limited and Union Public Service Commission are also conducting the on line examination by adopting equipercentile method. The essence of normalized equipercentile is fixing up a common percentile for all the test form administered. This procedure is done through statistical software prepared by the IT company. Raw scores of all the forms administered are computed. Normalized equipercentile equating method has been examined and approved by this Court in various judgments. Reliance in this connection is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Dr. Anil Kumawat vs. Naveen Agrawal, SLP (Civil) No.15750/12 decided on 9.5.2012 and judgment of this Court in Dr. Vijaypal Singh vs. RUHS, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3967/12 decided on 9.4.2012.

Shri M.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent-university, submitted that the Board of Management of the respondent-University decided to have reciprocal academic arrangement with some of the reputed Universities including two Central Universities. The respondent-University, therefore, requested such Universities to get 15 question-papers prepared but they received only 12 question-papers. The respondent-University converted such question-papers in the encrypted form and stored them in compact discs. Out of them, only 5 papers each obtained in compact disk, were selected by the university at the time of each slot and one of them was randomly got selected by a respected person from different field and it was then uploaded on the website in encrypted form. It could be read by the candidates only after they have logged in at the examination centre with their password. The intention of the university was to maintain absolute secrecy therefore at that stage, it did not involve any local experts for moderation. The intention of the university was thus genuine and bona-fide.

Shri M.A. Khan, learned counsel for the RUHS argued that as far as deletion of 86 questions and correction of answer of other 62 questions is concerned, it has had no adverse effect on the merits of the candidates as raw marks secured by them on the basis of remaining questions were proportionately enhanced and it was thereafter that the correct raw marks were arrived at on that basis. The equated score of all six slots were thus reached and ultimately the equipercentile method was applied on such equated scores. Learned counsel has submitted that such decision of the respondent-University was based on the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Kanpur University vs. Samit Gupta - AIR 1983 SC 1230 and in Rajesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar - (2013) 4 SCC 690.

Shri M.A. Khan, learned counsel for the RUHS submitted that the respondent-university has taken all the precautions to ensure that sanctity of the examination is in no way compromised and the examination is conducted in most expeditious, efficient and confidential manner. It had set up 42 centres in 30 colleges in 6 districts. 1099 CCTV cameras were installed and 269 mobile jammers were also installed to ensure that no candidate misused the cellphone. The video camera was also commissioned to make video recording of each centre. The respondent-University adopted the biometric system so as to take the thumb impression and photograph of each candidate while entering the examination centre, which eventually could make basis for his appearance in counselling so as to eliminate any possibility of impersonation. Learned counsel denied the allegation that the candidates were provided roll number and slot number as per their choice and convenience. It is argued that all this was done in randomized manner by the computer and therefore, there was no possibility of any candidate choosing either centre or date of his/her examination.

I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

In order to appreciate the submissions made, it would be at this stage useful to note the particulars of the questions that were deleted and also the questions whereof the options/answers was corrected. The table thereof is reproduced hereunder:

86 Questions deleted Date Batch / Slot Chemistry (out of 50 Ques.

in each slot) Biology (Zoology & Botany (out of 100 ques.

in each slot) Physics (out of 50 que.

in each slot) Total 28.05. 2014 I 1 4 2 7 II 4 4 5 13 29.05.2014 I 2 10 12 24 II 1 5 2 8 30.05.2014 I 3 10 4 17 II 3 5 9 17 Total 14 out of 300 questions 38 out of 600 questions 34 out of 300 questions 86 out of 1200 questions 62 Questions, option corrected Date Batch / Slot Chemistry Biology Physics Total 28.05.2014 I 2 4 0 6 II 0 2 5 7 29.05.2014 I 2 13 3 18 II 2 3 5 10 30.05.2014 I 3 5 0 8 II 8 5 0 13 Total 17 out of 300 32 out of 600 13 out of 300 62 out of 1200 In the result declared on 5.6.2014, 1310 candidates were declared as pass for admission to MBBS course. Such result was declared after applying the equipercentile method. On being required by this Court, the respondent-university has produced the list of top 1310 candidates on the basis of raw score displayed on their computer screen in the first instance. Those marks were shown before deleting the 86 questions and changing the options of 62 questions, both of which varied from subject to subject. For example, in the first slot of 29.5.2014, 24 marks were deleted, being 2 in Chemistry, 10 in Biology and 12 in Physics. In the same slot, the options to 18 questions were corrected, being 2 in Chemistry, 13 in Biology and 3 in Physics. If one carefully analyses those datas, it would be evident that 10 questions in Biology were deleted and the options of 13 questions in that very subject were changed. In this manner, 42 questions out of 200 total questions were affected of this slot, one way or the other. One wonders if that would still not affect the fairness of the selection. Similarly, 17 questions in the first slot of 30.5.2014 were deleted and options of 8 questions in the same slot were changed. Thus, 25 questions were affected. In the second slot of the same day, 17 questions were deleted and option of 13 was changed. Thus as many as 30 questions were affected thereby. In total 148 questions out of 1200 in all six slots were affected in this manner. Now the respondent-university seeks to justify this action by variety of explanations; firstly by stating that they completely deleted all those 86 questions. But the effect of this deletion is that whoever was originally awarded 4 marks for each of such questions if his/her reply was in conformity with the answer key firstly published by the university, those marks had to be deleted. And the explanation for the wrong options corrected later is that though the questions were correctly formulated, but options thereof were wrong and therefore changed, resulting in change of answer key. The effect of this was that marks which were originally awarded to some of the candidates on account of their attempting such (wrong) answer, had to be deleted and for some of such attempted answers, which were later considered to be correct in the revised answer key, candidates were awarded such marks.

A careful scrutiny of the record produced before the Court reveals that respondent-university has undertaken all this exercise at five different stages to eventually declare the result of the selected candidates. Let us try to understand the methodology adopted by the respondent-University with the help of answer-sheets of two candidates, namely, Hans Raj Yadav with Roll No.326095, who appeared in the second slot of examination on 29.05.2014, and Nawab Ali with Roll No.327553, who appeared in the second slot of examination on 30.05.2014, produced for perusal of the court, gist of which is reproduced hereunder:

RUHS, Jaipur RPMT 2014 CANDIDATE RESPONSES Roll No.:326095 Test Date: 28-May-2014 Candidate Name: HANS RAJ YADAV Test Slot: 02:00 PM : 05:00 PM Sl.No. Question ID Original Key Candidate Answer in the exam Displayed raw Score at Centre Revised Ans Key Corrected raw Score after grievance Difference in Score 1 0013017 B B 4 B 4 0 2 ....

....

200

....

Total 536 Out of 800 520 out of 748 16 Colour Code Description No. of Questions No. of Marks Yellow Key changed got extra marks 4 16 Red Deleted Question(s) (answered correctly) marks reduced 7

-28 Gray Key changed lost Marks 1

-4 Marks reduced after grievances

-4

-16 No. of questions deleted in this session 13 No. of questions where answer key changed in this session 7 Corrected raw score (out of 800) after redressal of grievances 556.15 Equated Score (across all 6 sessions) 556.15 Equi percentile on 41911 candidates 89.819 RUHS, Jaipur RPMT 2014 CANDIDATE RESPONSES Roll No.:327553 Test Date: 30-May-2014 Candidate Name: NAWAB ALI Test Slot: 02:00 PM : 05:00 PM Sl.No. Question ID Original Key Candidate Answer in the exam Displayed raw Score at Centre Revised Ans Key Corrected raw Score after grievance Difference in Score 1 0016030 C B 0 B 4 4 2 ....

....

200

....

Total 536 Out of 800 520 out of 748

-16 Colour Code Description No. of Questions No. of Marks Yellow Key changed got extra marks 8 32 Red Deleted Question(s) (answered correctly) marks reduced 5

-20 Gray Key changed lost Marks 1

-4 Marks reduced after grievances 2 8 No. of questions deleted in this session 17 No. of questions where answer key changed in this session 13 Corrected raw score (out of 800) after redressal of grievances 555.19 Equated Score (across all 6 sessions) 553.23 Equi percentile on 41911 candidates 89.489 In the case of Hansraj Yadav, he was originally awarded 536 marks out of 800(described as displayed raw marks) by not excluding the incorrect 86 questions and taking wrong answer of 62 questions as correct. After the final report of the Grievance Committee in his case when the answer key of 4 questions were changed, he got additional 16 marks and lost 4 marks on this head for one question. His total gain on this head was 12 marks, but because of deletion of 7 questions, which in his case were earlier taken as correct, he lost 28 marks, value of each question being 4. Thus, his overall loss was of 16 marks, but in all 13 questions were deleted in this slot, therefore, the value of remaining questions was left only 748 marks. With the deduction of 16 marks, he was shown to have secured 520 raw marks on the 748 marks in the second stage. This takes up to the third stage where the respondent-university has arrived at the corrected raw score by computing the percentage of 520 marks on the total 748 marks, which is 69.518% and this percentage has been translated into corrected raw marks of total 800 marks, which comes to 556.15 marks. Then at the fourth stage, the respondents have equated such marks across all six slots/sessions to reach the equated marks of 556.15 marks. It is thereafter at the fifth stage that they had applied the equipercentile method on 41911 candidates, which in his case comes to 89.819.

Similarly, in the case of Nawab Ali, supra, he was shown to have secured 500 out of 800 marks(displayed raw marks) originally by taking the question paper as correct in all respects. Since thereafter total 17 questions were deleted in his session/slot, the value of remaining questions was only 732. The answer key of 9 marks was changed in that slot, eight of which were correctly attempted by him and, therefore, he gained 32 marks, but 1 was wrongly attempted and therefore he lost 4 marks on this head thus, his overall gain was 28 marks. But at the same time, answer of 5 questions attempted by him was changed from correct to incorrect and he thereby lost 20 marks. In overall, therefore, he gained only 8 marks. Since 17 questions were deleted the overall value of rest of the questions remained of 732 and he in second stage has secured 508 out of 732, securing percentage of 69.398%. This percentage was applied on the overall 800 marks to arrive at the corrected raw marks, which came to 555.19, which is stage three in this case. Then came stage 4 when the respondents arrived at equated score across all 6 slots, which came to 553.27 in his case. Thus, in his case, the corrected raw marks when translated into equated score were reduced. Then equipercentile on total number of candidates was reached to 89.489 in his case.

This indeed is a highly complex, confusing and cumbersome process beyond the comprehension of any candidate which, stage by stage, dilutes the true reflection of merit. This would be further highlighted from certain datas, which have been furnished by the respondents themselves on being required by the Court as to what difference it made in the overall merit from one stage to another. The respondent-university has for that purpose produced three lists namely; (i) List-1:Displayed Raw Marks vs. Corrected Raw Marks Comparison, (ii) List-2:Corrected Raw Marks vs. Displayed Raw Marks Comparison and (iii) List:3 Equated Marks vs. Corrected Raw Marks Comparison. The respondents have also produced three lists of top 1310 candidates prepared on the basis of (i) dis-raw score displayed on the computer screen of the candidates, (ii) corrected raw score, (iii) equated score. And then thereafter of course fourth list was of the candidates who were finally selected. First three of these lists have been produced on the basis of records/datas fed in their computers. All these lists are taken on record.

In all the aforesaid lists, the respondents agree that 359 candidates are such, who are common in List-1, List-2 and List-3, supra. According to List-1, 180 candidates were common in the displayed raw score and corrected raw score from first slot of 28th May. This they have sought to explain from the charts indicating that 104 candidates, who were earlier available in displayed raw score, did not figure in the corrected raw score in first slot of 28th May, 2014. Besides, 21 such candidates, who were in displayed raw score, did not appear in corrected raw score in second slot of 28th May, 2014 whereas there was no such change in the first slot of 29th May, 2014, but 37 candidates are said to be common between displayed raw score and corrected raw score of second slot of 29th May, 2014. Then, 15 candidates were such, who were there in the displayed raw marks, but were not appearing in the corrected raw score on 29th May, 2014, whereas 1 candidate, who was there in displayed raw score, was not in corrected raw score in first slot of 30th May. Similarly, 1 candidate appearing in displayed raw score, did not appear in the corrected raw score in second slot of 30th May. Out of 359 candidates, who are said to be not common in all the three lists, 217 candidates are such, who are common in the list prepared on the basis of displayed raw marks and corrected raw marks.

As evidenced from the aforementioned List-2, 142 new candidates appeared in the list prepared on the basis of corrected raw marks by displacing another set of 142 candidates from the list of displayed raw marks. Similarly, 180 candidates are common between corrected raw marks list and displayed raw marks list in first slot of 28th May, 2014, whereas 1 candidate each shown in corrected raw marks lists was not there in the list prepared on the basis of displayed raw score in both first and second slot of 28th May. And 13 candidates, who appeared by applying corrected raw marks, did not find place in the list prepared on the basis of displayed raw score in first slot of 29th May, whereas in the second slot of 29th May, 8 candidates shown in the list prepared on the basis of corrected raw marks, did not appear in the list prepared on the basis of displayed raw marks. Similarly, 119 candidates appeared in the list prepared on the basis of corrected raw marks also did not appear in the list prepared as per displayed raw score in second slot of 30th May.

Now finally in the list was prepared on the basis of equated marks, as explained in List-3, supra, entirely new lot of 225 candidates were added therein on account of adoption of equipercentile method, a fact admitted by the respondent-university in the chart produced for perusal of this Court. In that chart, it is shown that as far as slot no.1 of 28th May, 2014 is concerned, all the candidates were common in the list prepared on the basis of corrected raw marks as also on the basis of equated score. However, in slot second of 28th May, only 1 candidate was common in the list prepared on the basis of equated score and that of the corrected raw marks, but in that very slot, 22 candidates, who were newly shown in the list prepared on the basis of equated score, did not appear in the corrected raw score list. Similarly, 13 candidates from slot first of 29th May were common in corrected raw score list as well as equated score list, but this has made enormous difference when we compare two lists prepared on the basis of corrected raw score and equated score because 138 candidates were such, who were not appearing in the corrected raw score list, found place in equated score list. If that figure is co-related to the number of questions that were found to be deleted as well as questions, whose answers were changed, it has certainly had a co-relation with that change and has obviously been affected by ultimate application of the equipercentile method because as noticed above, it was in the first slot of 29th May that as many as 24 questions were deleted and answers/options of 18 questions were changed taking this total to 42 questions out of 200. One cannot brush aside this circumstance by describing it as a mere co-incidence. In second slot of 29th May only 1 candidate is common in the list prepared on the basis of corrected raw score and equated score. But in the first slot of 30th May wherefrom 17 questions were deleted, again 65 candidates were such, who were not there in the corrected raw score list, but eventually made their way into equated score list. Besides, 119 candidates were such who were common in corrected raw score list and equated score list in second slot of 30th May.

This can be better understood from the two charts which the respondents have produced for perusal of the Court, which can be referred to herein for the facility of reference:

Chart I Without applying Equipercentile formula top 1310 candidate based on corrected raw score transformed to 800 Sl. No. Test Date Test Slot No. of Candidate Percentage 1 28-May-14 1 566 43.21 2 28-May-14 2 157 11.98 3 29-May-14 1 14 1.07 4 29-May-14 2 279 21.30 5 30-May-14 1 6 0.46 6 30-May-14 2 288 21.98 Total 1310 Chart II Top 1310 candidates after applying the equipercentile formula Sl. No. Test Date Test Slot No. of Candidate Percentage 1 28-May-14 1 385 29.39 2 28-May-14 2 179 13.66 3 29-May-14 1 152 11.60 4 29-May-14 2 235 17.94 5 30-May-14 1 71 5.42 6 30-May-14 2 288 21.98 Total 1310 Above extracted Chart no.1 indicates slot wise number of top 1310 candidates based on corrected raw marks when scaled/transformed to 800 marks. It shows that in the first slot of 29th May, only 14 candidates could make to that list obviously because that was the slot in which highest number of 24 questions were deleted and answer key of 18 questions was changed. This pattern has somewhat repeated itself when we find that only 6 candidates in the first slot of 30th May could make to that list. This was also largely because 17 questions from that slot were deleted and answer of 8 questions was changed. On the other hand, a high number of 566 candidates in first slot of 28th May appeared in that list because out of the slots, the least number of (7) questions were deleted from that slot and the answer key of least number of questions (6) was changed. When we compare the chart no.1 with chart no.2 containing the position of 1310 candidates, prepared after applying the equipercentile formula, it is evident that this wrong has not been remedied even thereafter. Although it has changed substantially, but that does not truly reflect the actual merit of the candidates, which would be otherwise available, had they been subjected to 'a common examination' on the basis of 'a common question paper', which is intended by clause 5 of the MCI Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997. The aforesaid clause-5 reads as under:

5. Selection of Students: The selection of students to medical college shall be based solely on merit of the candidate and for determination of merit, the following criteria be adopted uniformly throughout the country:

(1) In states, having only one Medical College and one university/board/examining body conducting the qualifying examination, the marks obtained at such qualifying examination may be taken into consideration.

(2) In states, having more than one university/board/examining body conducting the qualifying examination (or where there is more than one medical college under the administrative control of one authority) a competitive entrance examination should be held so as to achieve a uniform evaluation as there may be variation of standards at qualifying examinations conducted by different agencies.

(3) Where there are more than one college in a state and only one university/board conducting the qualifying examination, then a joint selection board be constituted for all the colleges.

(4) A competitive entrance examination is absolutely necessary in the cases of institutions of All India character.

Clause 5(2) of the MCI Regulations, thus clearly provides that in States having more than one university/board/examining body conducting the qualifying examination, a competitive entrance examination should be held so as to achieve uniform evaluation as there may be variation of standards at qualifying examinations conducted by different agencies. Although the phraseology 'qualifying examination' in the aforesaid clause has been used to indicate higher secondary examination/12th standard, but the earlier part which envisage a competitive entrance examination so as to achieve a uniform evaluation also conveys the same intention of eliminating the variation in the standards, which is what has been happened in the present case because if you subject different candidates to different set of question papers on different dates, there is bound to be variation of standards, which is antithesis to achieving uniform evaluation. Even the Expert Committee asked by the Government to go into the question also came across such a disparity when it noted that 75% candidates are selected from one slot on the basis of raw marks, whereas this percentage from another slot was zero and even after applying equipercentile formula, this percentage came down to only 25% and 8% respectively. Clearly, application of this formula has yielded highly unsatisfactory results and created doubts about its efficacy. If fact, the Expert Committee in its report has mentioned that when it required the private agency M/s Eduquity to explain various issues, the agency denied to disclose the secrets of equipercentile system because of its intellectual property rights. The Expert Committee then relied on the book Equating Test Scores (Without IRT) written by Samuel A. Livingston published by Equating Test Scores USA-2014 according to which equating cannot adjust scores correctly for every individual test checker. The author in the said book at Page 23, commenting on the limitation of equipercentile equating has observed as under:

A limitation of equipercentile equating:

One limitation of equipercentile equating is that the equating relationship cannot be determined for the parts of the score range above the highest score you observe and below the lowest score you observe. If you could observe the scores of the entire target population on both forms of the test, this limitation would not be a problem. In practice, it is not usually a problem for very low scores, because test users rarely need to discriminate at score levels below the lowest score observed. However, it can be a problem at high score levels on a difficult test, because some future test-taker may get a raw score higher than the highest score in the data used for the equating. Smoothing can help solve this problem because many smoothing methods will produce a smoothed distribution with nonzero probabilities (possibly very small, but not zero) at the highest and lowest score levels, even if no test-takers actually attained those scores. However, at those very high and very low score levels, the equating relationship computed from the smoothed distributions will be based on scores that were not actually observed! Equipercentile equating and the discreteness problem:

I said earlier that one limitation of equating comes from the discreteness of the score scale. That limitation applies to any type of equating. For linear equating, the discreteness of the scale does not cause a problem in computing the adjustmentonly in applying the adjustment after it is computed. But for equipercentile equating, the discreteness of the score scale causes a problem in computing the adjustment.

In handbook of Statistics 26, Psychometrics, Volume-26, First Edition 2007 published by Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data (ISBN-13:978-0-444-52103-3, ISBN-10:0-444-52103-8, ISSN (Series) : 0169-7161) edited by C.R. Rao and S. Sinharay, a paper titled Equating Test Scores authored by Paul W. Holland, Neil J. Dorans and Nancy S. Petersen, has been published wherein the authors of the study paper, observed as under:

3.1.1.3.-Presmoothing score distributions- Irregularities in the score distributions cause problems for equipercentile equating. They produce irregularities in the equipercentile equating function that do not generalize to other groups of test-takers. Consequently, it is generally considered advisable to presmooth the raw-score frequencies in some way prior to equipercentile equating. The purpose of this step is to eliminate some of the sampling variability present in the raw-score frequencies, in order to produce smoother edfs for computation of the equipercentile function. If presmoothing is done so as to preserve the essential features of the score frequencies, it will reduce the sampling variability in the estimated frequencies without introducing significant bias. The resulting estimates will be closer to the underlying frequencies in the target population, T. When presmoothing is done with a model that does not describe the data well, then the estimated frequencies will be biased estimates of the underlying frequencies in T. A limitation of equipercentile equating is that the equating relationship cannot be computed for any possible scores above the highest observed score or below the lowest observed score. If we could observe the scores of the entire target population, T, on both forms of the test, this limitation would not be a problem. Smoothing can help solve this problem because many smoothing methods will produce a smoothed distribution with probabilities (possibly very small) at the highest and lowest score levels, even if no test-takers actually attained those scores.

A study conducted in December, 1999 by Joel Rapp of National Institute for Testing and Evaluation in his paper Linear and Equipercentile Methods for Equating PET, which study was designed to determine whether there was any justification for replacing the linear equating method currently used for the Hebrew version of the Inter-University Psychometric Entrance Test (PET) with an equipercentile (curvilinear) equating method, it was observed as under:

Another disadvantage of the equipercentile method over the linear method is its complexity. It requires more complicated analyse, and presents its result in the form of a complex conversion table (or function). On the other hand, the method does not produce non-existing scores at the extremities of the score scale and obviates the need for performing a doglegging procedure.

Because the equipercentile equating method is complex and requires a large sample of examinees, its profitability is brought into question. While it is difficult to determine the fundamental equating relationship between PET forms, it can be determined whether or not equipercentile equating would result in outcomes that are radically different from those of the linear method. If there were to be significant differences in the outcome of the two procedures, the option of replacing the linear equating method with a more complex one would have to be seriously considered.

We are not expert in the subject and this of course is an issue for deeper examination by the experts, but as evident from afore-extracted excerpts, the experts in the subject have also not found the equipercentile formula/method free from doubt and have expressed their reservations thereabout. The intention of the university in applying the equipercentile formula was to make up for the difference in the difficulty level of the candidates and from what has been discussed above, this has obviously failed to achieve that purpose. What is more, the examination in question ought to be as per the statutory requirement contained in clause-5 of the MCI Regulations should be based on common standards providing the level playing field to all the candidates, which, in this competitive era, is need of the hour. The different lists/charts produced by the respondent-university indicate that intensity of competition was so high amongst the students that there was tie at almost every second level with number of students securing same marks. With large number of defects and deficiencies in the setting of examination papers, it cannot be said that best among the lot has been selected by mere adoption of the equipercentile formula. In fact, the competition is so stiff that difference of 0.001% could result in lot of change in the inter se merit placement of candidates. When the All India PMT Examination-2014 with as many as 6 lacs candidates could be held on the basis of single question paper by adopting the OMR sheet method, why the common examination cannot be held simultaneously for all the candidates on the basis of a common paper is difficult to approve. As rightly argued by learned Advocate General, holding such examination now would be in conformity with MCI Regulations, 1997 and when the Government upon consideration of all these factors, has taken a conscious decision to hold the examination afresh, its decision cannot be said to be without justification. There is therefore no reason for this Court to find fault with such decision of the Government.

Contention that other organizations/ institutions have also adopted the equipercentile formula in the competitive/entrance examination, does not lead us any where because the present matters are being decided on the basis of datas/material placed on record of this case, according to which the equipercentile method has been found to be not suitable to achieve the object of securing uniform evaluation on common standards providing equal playing field to all the candidates. The cited Single Bench judgment of this court in Dr. Vijay Pal Singh, supra, and that of the Division Bench in Dr. Anil Kumawat, supra, upholding the former judgment, being distinguishable on facts, cannot be applied to the facts of the present case as in that case application of equalization through SEP was upheld as an alternative to cancellation of examination due to emergency arising from dysfunctional computers in the main examination. Those judgments neither endorse nor can they be said to approve holding separate examination on the basis of different question papers to secure uniform evaluation of candidate on common standards providing equal opportunity to all the candidates.

In view of the above discussion, the process of examination of RPMT-2014 and result thereof declared by the respondent-University on 05.06.2014, being illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, are quashed and set aside. Decision of the Government to hold fresh RPMT Examination is upheld. The respondents, however, are set at liberty to hold fresh RPMT-2014 examination on the basis of application forms already received, with permission of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to suitably modify the calendar of the said examination laid down by their Lordships in the order dated 19.05.2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.737/2013 Lipika Gupta and Another Vs. Union of India and Others so as to complete the admission process by 30th September, 2014.

Accordingly the writ petitions of the petitioners, who remained unsuccessful in the RPMT-2014 examination stand allowed and the writ petitions of the petitioners declared successful, are dismissed.

This also disposes of stay applications.

(Mohammad Rafiq) VJ.

//Jaiman// All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.

Giriraj Prasad Jaiman PS-cum-JW

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur