Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. The third and the most significant out of the circumstances, which the Special Officer relied upon was the similarity in the performance of the candidates, who appeared in the test from Room No. 8 of the centre. The close resemblance and the striking but unusual similarity in the marks secured by the candidates was taken as a clear indication of the candidates having taken help from a common source while attempting the question papers.

7. That each one of the circumstances mentioned above and relied upon by the Special Officer is a relevant circumstance cannot and has not been disputed. The only question therefore is whether the conclusion arrived at by the Special Officer on the basis of these circumstances can be said to be so patently erroneous as to be considered preverse. Now it is true that a co-incidence like people from different parts of the Country or the State of Karnataka choosing Koppal as a centre may not in itself be of much significance if there was no other circumstance suggestive of any mischief like the use of unfair means in the examination. Just because candidates from different parts of the Country or the State for their own reasons of convenience, comfort or such other considerations chose a particular place for taking a competitive examination may not in itself constitute an incriminating circumstance. Such a situation may come about innocently and for no better reason than sheer co-incidence. But any such circumstances may assume considerable importance in the company of other circumstances, or incriminating evidence supporting the allegation of a mis-demeanour like mass-copying in the instant case. Similarly the fact that a candidate had performed poorly in the qualifying examination may be no reason for holding that he could not have done better in a competitive test especially one of an objective type as in the instant case. Corelation of the performance of a candidate in the qualifying examination with that in the competitive test taken by him/her may be permissible and relevant but cannot be conclusive of the matter. Here again, the comparison between the two performances may only be corroborative in nature depending upon other supportive evidence or circumstances. What is however not explainable is the similarity in the performance of the candidates, who appeared in the test from Room No. 8. A perusal of the comparative statement set out in the impugned order would show that in Physics, each one of the candidates, who took the examination from Room No. 8 scored between 30 and 37.5 marks. In Chemistry, each one of those, who appeared from that room scored between 52 and 60 marks. Similarly in the case of Biology, each one of the candidates, who appeared in the test from Room No. 8 of the centre scored between 41.75 and 50 marks. Even this striking similarity or consistent performance of all those, who appeared in the examination from Koppal may have been ignored as something normal, if those who appeared in the very next room had a similar score to their credit. The Special Officer has drawn up the list of those, who appeared in the examination in the other room of the centre at Koppal. A glance at the performances of the candidates in all the 4 subjects is both interesting and revealing. In Physics, the candidates have scored between 0 and 27.5. In Chemistry, the candidates have scored between 6.25 and 34. In Biology, the students have scored between 6 and 45.75. It is significant to note that in nore of these subjects, is there an award repeated except between those, who have scored zero in Physics. There are 3 candidates, who have scored zero marks in Physics. But for that similarity, there is not a single other candidate, who has scored the same marks as any other candidate out of the 37 candidates, who appeared in the other room at Koppal. When this is compared with the performance of candidates huddled in Room No. 8, it is evident that there are 6 out of 15 candidates, who have all scored 35 out of 60 marks. There are 4 candidates, who have scored 36.25 marks out of 60. The remaining 5 have also scored between 30 and 33.75. Similarly in Chemistry, there are 6 candidates, who have scored 57.5 out of 60. Three have scored 58.75 while three others have scored 56.25 out of 60. One of them viz., Anjanprabhu K, has scored 60 out of 60 even though in his qualifying examination he has scored 36 out of 100. This is true even in respect of Biology, where the highest marks awarded are to Basavaraj C S who has scored 50 out of 60. The striking dissimilarity in the pattern of performance between those, who appeared in Room No. 8 and others who appeared from the adjacent room in that centre has not been and cannot be explained except on the basis that candidates in Room No. 8 had an advantage available to them, which was common to all, while those in the adjacent room were deprived of the same. Superadded to all this is the fact that the performance of some of these candidates, who are by no means the very best candidates keeping in view their performance in the qualifying examination when compared with the performance of the first 10 toppers in the CET examination does not support the theory of innocence propounded by the Counsel appearing for them.

9. Reliance upon the recent decision of the Supreme Court in, Rajesh Kumar v. Institute of Engineers (India), AIR 1998 SC 5 : (1997 AIR SCW 3946), is of little assistance to the petitioners. That was a case where the candidates had been accused of copying even when the seating arrangement made it impossible for them to copy from each others answer script. The students had explained the similarity in the answers on the ground that they had crammed the same from a common book. The competent authority had subjected the candidates to a cramming test and found that the same did not support the explanation given by the candidates. It was in that background that their lordships held the exercise to be bad. Similarity in answers from a common source like a book does-not, declared the Court, establish any connection between a conspiracy to use unfair means and the answers given by the candidates. The following passages is in this regard apposite at Page 7 (of AIR):--

"All literate men have been students at a given point of time but all have not been crammers. Those who cram do not achieve their goal by a single reading. It is a ceaseless effort for days and days till the desired result is achieved. Crammers inter se do not have any nexus with each other. The text of a book as the common source for cramming establishes no connection. That per-se cannot be evidence of any conspiracy between the crammers to adopt unfair means in the examination unless there be material to show that there was copying of the answer books, defended from the answer book of one of the candidates, or directly from the book leading to the copying by others."