Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11 Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel, submits that normalisation adopted by the respondent is neither pragmatic nor practical. There should be some method to equalise or normalise the marks obtained by the candidates in the examination conducted in different years by the same Board. According to Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, the normalisation scheme adopted by AIIMS is applicable to students of the same academic year of two shifts examination and the same be made applicable here also. Relying on the figures as annexed with his papers, he would submit that only 3.8% of total seats would go to the candidates of the present year and 49.5% of total seats will go to the candidates of the previous years.

24 It is further urged that the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the candidates of the previous years, who had not participated in the selection or admission process, may be permitted to attend the current year counselling would establish the fact that the qualifying examination of the previous year is one and the same and on par with the qualifying examination of the current year. The scheme contemplates treating all candidates equal, who had taken qualifying examination in different years from the same board and as such, the normalisation of marks would not be applicable in case of those candidates. Therefore, the normalisation of marks across the years which is not permitted by the statute cannot be directed by this court in a writ of mandamus. Further, normalisation of marks can be done by considering the highest marks secured by students in each subject. Even if there is normalisation of marks across the years, the highest marks secured in all the years of the qualifying examination conducted by the State board is the maximum marks which the student could have obtained in those examinations.

ii The normalisaton of marks is defective. The method applied by AIIMS, New Delhi, wherein, even for the candidates of the same year, if examination is held in two shifts, normalisation of marks is applicable. In the case on hand, normalisation of marks be made applicable in respect of all the candidates of previous years also vis-a-vis, the candidates of the current year.
iii Dispensing with the common entrance test which ensures fair merit selection replacing by admission to MBBS/BDS courses on the basis of qualifying marks is violative of well settled principles of law and also the mandate laid down by the Supreme Court.
36 Regarding normalisation, different examinations conducted by different authorities have adopted different types of normalisation mechanism. The provision of normalisation of marks is enshrined in Section 5 of the Act which is not under challenge. As we have held that examinations conducted by the State Board, irrespective of years, is one and the same and as such, the same cannot be made applicable to the candidates having obtained qualifying examination certificate from the same State Board, but, in different years.