Karnataka High Court
Kum. K. Kruthika Madappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 June, 2013
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION NO.22824 OF 2013 (EDN-EX)
BETWEEN:
Kum.K.Kruthika Madappa,
D/o K.M.Madappa,
Aged 18 years,
C.E.T. No.AS105
R/at No.2955, Double Road,
2nd Stage, Vijayanagar,
Mysore - 570 001. ... Petitioner
(By Sri P.N.Manmohan, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Department of Education,
M.S.Building, Bangalore - 560 001.
Represented by its Secretary.
2. Karnataka Examination Authority,
Sampige Road, 18th Cross,
Malleshwaram, Bangalore - 560 012.
Represented by its Director. ... Respondents
(By Sri R.Omkumar, AGA for R1:
Sri N.K.Ramesh, Advocate for R2)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the answer key dated
25.5.2013, issued by the R2, in so far as it relates to
awarding of grace marks in respect of the subject Biology
2
[version B-3] question numbers 16, 27, 28, 29, 54 and 56
produced as Annexure - N and consequently issue fresh
answer key and etc.
This writ petition, coming on for orders, this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has sought the quashing of the key- answer, dated 25.05.2013 issued by the respondent No.2 in so far as it relates to the awarding of grace marks in Biology (B-3 version) to question Nos. 16, 27, 28, 29, 54 and 56.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner appeared for the Common Entrance Test ('CET' for short) held on 01.05.2013 and 02.05.2013 for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course. The second respondent hosted the key answers on the website and called for the objections from the students. On the students fling the objections and on the consideration of their objections, the respondent No.2 referred them to the experts committee and decided to give 7 grace marks for question Nos.11, 16, 27, 28, 29, 54 and 56.
3. The petitioner has no grievance over the awarding of grace marks for question No.11. But her grievance is over the 3 awarding of marks for six questions namely 16, 27, 28, 29, 54 an 56. Contending that one or two of the four responses is/are correct, Sri P.N.Manmohan, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for question No.16 both response Nos. 1 and 4 are the probable correct answers. He would therefore contend that the candidates who have marked response Nos. 1 and/or 4 are to be given one mark and the candidates who have marked 2 and 3 are to be given no marks.
4. In response to question No.27, it is Sri Manmohan's submission that the response No.3 is the correct answer, but the response No.4 could also be treated as the correct answer. Therefore, the candidates who have marked response Nos. 3 and/or 4 are to be given one mark.
5. In respect of question No.28, the learned counsel's submission is that if the response LH were to be one of the responses, that could have been taken as the correct answer. In the absence of LH, the next correct answer is FSH which was response No.1. He also draws support from the key answers as hosted by the BOSCO, a famous Tutorial Institute.
4
6. In respect of question No.29, he submits that the response No.1 is the correct answer, as certified by the BOSCO also. Similarly, in respect of question No.54, the response No.1 is the correct answer and the same is certified to be so by the BOSCO.
7. In respect of question No.56, he submits that the response No.4 is the correct answer; next to it is the response No.1. Therefore, the candidates who marked the response Nos. 1 and 2 alone are entitled to the marks and not the candidates who have marked the response Nos. 2 or 3. He also complains of discrimination. He submits that two answers (response Nos. 1 and 2) are correct for question No.59 and that therefore the respondent No.2 has awarded the marks where the candidates have marked the response 1 or response 2. He submits that the same yardstick ought to have been followed in respect of the other questions.
8. The learned counsel relies on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of ASHA vs. PT.B.D.SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND OTHERS reported 5 in (2012) 7 SCC 389 to advance his submission that merit should not become a casualty.
9. He has also relied on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY vs. SAUMIL GARG AND OTHERS reported in 2005 (13) SCC 749 and based on the said decision he would seek the reference of the issue to an expert body, namely, C.B.S.E.
10. The learned counsel has also produced the copies of the relevant pages of the Biology textbooks published by the National Council of Educational Research and Training and of the Biology (Volume-2) written by Sri M.Sudhaker Rao and the opinions of some doctors, including the petitioner's mother to buttress his submission that some of the questions for which the grace marks are awarded, are correctly framed and that the answers indicated in one or two of the four responses are also correct.
11. Sri N.K.Ramesh, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner herself has not filed the objections to the draft key answers. Objections are 6 filed only by the petitioner's mother. The petitioner's mother is a doctor by profession. She cannot therefore step into the shoes of her daughter for the purpose of deciding whether the framing of the question and the indicating of the responses thereto are correct. He submits that the comprehending of the questions and the answers has to be assessed with reference to the capabilities of a second year P.U.C. student. If the questions are wrongly framed and if the four responses are not correct or/are confusing, the grace marks are to be awarded. He submits that the decision to award the grace marks is based on the Committee of four outstanding experts in Biology. Their objective opinion cannot be dislodged by the interested opinion of the petitioner's mother, so submits Sri Ramesh.
12. He submits that the grace marks are given not only in Biology but also in all other three subjects. He submits that the grace marks are awarded as follows: Physics-6 marks, Chemistry-3 marks and in Mathematics-2 marks. He further submits that the petitioner herself is a beneficiary of grace marks in Physics and Chemistry.
7
13. He submits that 1,30,000 students have appeared for the C.E.T. As per the calendar of events of C.E.T., the verification of the eligible candidates is underway. He submits that the classes of first year M.B.B.S. are scheduled to commence on 1st August 2013. The respondent No.2 is expected to complete the counselling and admission process expeditiously.
14. Sri R.Omkumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1 prays for the dismissal of this petition.
15. The facts of Asha (supra) and of the case on hand are entirely different. In the said reported case, the question involved was whether the candidate was present before the counselling board at the crucial time. In the case of Guru Nanak Dev University (supra), the grace marks were awarded for certain questions irrespective of whether or not those candidates have attempted those questions. In the instant case, only those who have attempted the seven questions in dispute are awarded the grace marks. Further, 8 the need to refer to another expert body would not arise in this case, as the decision to award the grace marks is not an executive decision; it is based on the recommendations of the committee of four academicians in the Biology subject. Based on ipse-dixit of the petitioner that the six questions in dispute are correctly framed or that one or two responses given thereto are correct, I do not propose to refer the matter to the C.B.S.C. This Court, in a case of this nature, would not hold the roving enquiry in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
16. It is trite that this Court's interference in the educational matters has to be with circumspection. As held by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 28.09.2012 passed n W.A.No.5410/2012 and connected matters in the case of YOGISH M. vs. THE REGISTRAR, VISHVESHWARAIAH TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS, the Courts cannot claim knowledge and expertise in the field of education. The decisions are to be better left to the competence of the educationists or subject experts. 9
17. In the case of ALL INDIA COUNCIL OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION vs. SURINDER KUMAR DHAWAN reported in AIR 2009 SC 2322, it is held that the role of expert bodies on education and the role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving the academic matter, the courts keep their hands off. It is a rule of prudence that the courts should hesitate to dislodge the decisions of the educationists.
18. The respondents are under the constraints of a ticking clock to complete the ongoing counselling process. On the ipse-dixit of one student out of 1,30,000, this Court's interference at this stage is not warranted. It is difficult to put the clock back.
19. For another reason too, I am disinclined to interfere in the matter. While it may be impossible for the petitioner to arraign all the candidates as the respondents who would be affected, if this Court refers the matter to the C.B.S.E. and/or directs the redoing of the process thereon, the petitioner ought to have arraigned atleast some toppers in the Common Entrance Test as parties to this petition. 10
20. Without hearing any other student on the tenability or otherwise of the awarding of the grace marks, it is neither desirable nor viable to give any direction, which may have the effect of redoing the process. I am therefore dismissing this petition inspite of the strenuous arguments advanced by Sri Manmohan.
21. The respondents are directed to do everything possible to reduce the error margin. The awarding of six grace marks for a question paper which carries 60 marks amounts to awarding 10% grace marks. As the matter involves the career-interests of lakhs of students, the respondents are directed to exercise due diligence and care and ensure that the errors do not creep into the multiple choice question papers.
22. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-