IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11957 of 2008 Between: Chi. K. Sai Tejeswani being minor rep. by her Father and best Friend, Dr. K. Hari Babu garu, Aged: 52 years, Occ: Doctor, R/o. G-1 Vennela Apartments, 1st Lane, Chandramouli Nagar, Guntur -522 007. ..... PETITIONER AND The Convenor, EAMCET - 2008, SIT Building ( Cellar Floor ), Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University ( JNTU ) Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500 085. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus calling for the records relating to and in connection with the EAMCET-2008 Key and declare the final key data concerning the question Nos. 160, 53, 104 and 89, as apparently wrong and declare the same as such while consequentially directing the respondent to fix the ranking and direct the respondent to conduct the counseling based on the re-installed rank and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.JAGDISH Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12212 of 2008 Between: 1 G. Umamaheswari, D/o. G.Manmohan Krishna R/o. H.No.327/B, Prajay Sai Gardens, Bandlaguda, Keesara Mandal, R.R. District. 2 P. Satyanarayana Reddy S/o. P. Veera Reddy R/o. Flat No.3, Rajeswari Residency, 4th Lane, Gazetted Officers Colony, Vijayawada-8. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Medical and Health Education, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 NTR University of Health and Science, rep. by its Vice Chancellor, Vijayawada. 3 NTR University of Health and Science, rep. by its Registrar, Vijayawada. 4 Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, rep. by its Convenor, EAMCET 2008, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in changing the Key Answer to Question No.160 in the Medical Entrance Examination, EAMCET 2008 conducted by the 4th respondent in May, 2008, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and thereafter place the 1st petitioner's ranking appropriately in the said examination; and consequently direct the respondents to consider the 1st petitioner's answer to Question No.160 of Medical Entrance Examination, EAMCET 2008 in accordance with the key published after the Entrance examination for which objections were invited and for which no objections were received and thereafter place 1st petitioner's ranking appropriately, pending disposal of the above writ petition; and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMI.WELFARE The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: 1. In these two Writ Petitions the validity of final key in respect of certain questions in EAMCET 2008 examination held on 8.5.2008 are assailed. More precisely the validity of final key answers in respect of question Nos.53, 88, 89, 98, 104, 114 and 160 are questioned in W.P.NO.11957 of 2008 and whereas key answer to question No.160 is questioned in W.P.No.12212 of 2008. Since the core issue involved in these two writ petitions is one and the same they are taken up together for decision. 2. The entrance test for admission into medical and engineering colleges was held in the State of Andhra Pradesh on 8.5.2008. The petitioner in W.P.No.11957 of 2008 and the 1st petitioner in W.P.No.12212 of 2008 sought admission into MBBS course. The initial key was published on 11.5.2008. The objections to the initial key were called for by 18.5.2008. Subject experts met on 20.5.2008. Final key prepared by the subject experts came to be approved on 23.5.2008 and the result came to be declared on 24.5.2008. The 1st petitioner in W.P.No.12212 of 2008 secured 69th rank and whereas the petitioner in W.P.No.11957 of 2008 secured 1521 rank. 3. When the writ petitions came up for admission, Sri.K.Ratangapani Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for J.N.T.U. received notices on behalf of the Convenor, EAMCET 2008, JNTU Hyderabad and filed counters and additional counter affidavits. 4. The following are the questions in respect of which controversy in these two writ petitions arises: Question Nos.53, 88, 89, 98, 104, 114 and 160. Question No.53: Statement (S) Arthropoda are the most successful of all the known animal groups. Reason ® : Arthropoda exhibit the greatest adaptive radiation and have adapted to diverse habitats. (1) Both (S) and (R) are true and (R) explains (S) (2) Both (S) and (R) are true but (R) cannot explain (S) (3) Only (S) is correct but (R) is wrong (4) Both (S) are wrong. Question No.88: A body of mass ‘m’ is placed on a rough wooden plank. One end of the wooden plank raised from the surface of the horizontal plane keeping other end in contact with the surface. The body just start slide down when angle of plank with the horizontal is 30’. At that instant how much force parallel to the plank is required to stop the slide down of the mass? Options: (1) mg (2) mg/2 (3) ( 3/2) mg (4) (1/ 3) mg. Question No.89: Assertion (A): A ball connected to a string is in circular motion on a frictionless horizontal table and is in equilibrium. Reason (R): Magnitude of the centripetal force is equal to the magnitude of the tension in the strong. Question No.98: One mole of an ideal gas undergoes an isothermal change at temperature ‘T’ so that its volume ‘v’ is doubled. R is the molar gas constant. Work done by the gas during this change is (1) RT log 4 (2) RT log 2 (3) RT log 1 (4) RT log 3 Question No.104: In Huygen’s eye piece. (1) Chromatic aberration is not eliminated. (2) Spherical aberration is completely eliminated (3) Focal length of field lens and eye lens are equal (4) Cross wires cannot be provided Question No.114: A circular coil of wire of radius ‘r’ has ‘n’ turns and carries a current ‘I’. The magnetic induction (B) at a point on the axis of the coil at a distance 3r from its center is (1) M In/(4r) (2) m In/(8r) (3) m I/(16r) (4) m In/(32r) Question No.160: Match the following: List – I (Vitamins) List II (A) B1 (i) Riboflavin (B) B2 (ii) Pantothenic acid (C) B3 (iii) Niacin (D) B5 (iv) Thiamine 5. Heard Sri T.Jagdish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.11957 of 2008 and Sri P.Venugopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.12212 of 2008; Sri K.Ratangapani Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Convenor, EAMCET, JNTU, Hyderabad-respondent in W.P.No.11957 of 2008 and 4th respondent in W.P.No.12212 of 2008. 6(a). Before I consider the correctness or otherwise of the contentions raised in respect of each of the above questions, I deem it appropriate to advert to legal position as to what are the parameters within which the power of judicial review could be exercised when questions arose regarding the correctness or otherwise of the answers prepared by the examiners. In KANPUR UNIVERSITY v. SAMIR GUPTA[1] the Supreme Court had to consider whether certain answers found in the key prepared by the examiners for the Combined Pre-Medical Test in Uttar Pradesh were correct or not. In the State of Uttar Pradesh the papers set for the examinations related to multiple choice objective type tests. The Allahabad High Court found that certain answers mentioned in the key were correct and that the finding was arrived at with reference to the standard text books which were prescribed by the University for intermediate students and also certain other standard textbooks. In the State of Uttar Pradesh for intermediate courses standard books were prescribed. The key answers were published by the authorities in Uttar Pradesh along with the results and the same constituted the foundation for arguments advanced. When the High Court ruled that certain answers found in the key were correct, the matter was taken to the Supreme Court by way of an appeal by Kanpur University. It was contended that the Court should not entertain any argument relating to the correctness of the key answers unless on the face of it the same are shown to be wrong. Chief Justice Shri.Y.V.Chandrachud, speaking for the Court ruled that “ We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. The contention of the University is falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged text-books, which were commonly read by the students in Uttar Pradesh. Those text-books leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect.” 6(b). Learned Judges held in the said judgment that if it is a case of doubt, the answers found in the key should prevail, but if the matter is found to be beyond the realm of doubt that means to say that the answer found in the key is demonstrably to be wrong then alone the case of the students should be accepted. Merely because of the same set of facts the Court comes to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the authority cannot be termed as unreasonable. In order to characterize a decision as unreasonable a finding must be recorded that it was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it. The power of the Court to interfere in each case is not that of an appellate authority to over- ride the decision of the legal authority, but that is that of a judicial authority. 7. According to the petitioner in W.P.No.11957 of 2008, the answers in final key in respect of question Nos.53, 89 and 160 are incorrect. With regard to question Nos.88, 98, 104 and 114, it is the version of the petitioner in W.P.No.11957 of 2008 that they fall within the syllabi and options contained correct answers. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to refer para 7 of the additional affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, which reads as under: “ 7. It is submitted that the petitioner answered the questions correctly concerning the aforementioned questions, namely, question Nos.88, 98 and 114; these are the 3 (three) questions, which are rashly and impetuously decided as not falling within the syllabi and do not have correct options, and the students were accredited with the marks despite answering them incorrectly, demonstrably penalizing the students, who are answered it correct despite it is a fact that it is a tough question; however, traceable to and falling with the contours of the syllabus. It cannot now lie in the mouth of the convenor to say that the questions are well within the prescribed syllabi as was published in the prospectus of EAMCET 2008, and that it is not part of the books in the bibliography. Bibliography is not a basis to constitute for framing of the questions. Framing of questions is carried out based on the well defined and well demarcated contours of the syllabi as prescribed and foisted in the website and in the print form by the Board of Intermediate Education and traceable to the prospectus of the EAMCET-2008. If the prospectus takes into its account a particular subject, the inner core most difficult question falling within the contour of the syllabi needs to be evaluated and marks as are attained for proper and accurate answering shall be credited to the student. Deletion of those above 3 (three) questions and question No.104 referred to hereinabove reflets the arbitrary decision making process of the Experts Committee in demonstrably deleting certain properly framed questions with correct answers set out and fed into the computer. Such right of deletion is not made available under the rules to the Expert Committee nor can it make a recommendation of such nature. Hence, the entire decision making process concerning the above said 4 (four) questions is ex-facie arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court right from the days of 1984 SC 402 and AIR 1984 AP 321 (Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court).” 8. The respondent filed counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit. The sum and substance of the counter affidavit is as follows: The preparation of question paper and preparation of keys and evaluation involves the following sequence of actions. 1) Preparation of Question bank. 2) Preparation of 4 sets of question papers (and their keys). 3) Picking up of two question papers by the Convenor. 4) Checking the clarity of questions and for any clarification Convenor approaches the paper setters in person. 5) Conduct of examination. 6) Formation of initial key committee, which is other than paper setter committee. 7) Question papers will be sent to all the members of the initial key committee to prepare key. 8) Meeting of the initial key committee. 9) Release of initial key. 10) Response to the initial key are invited from the students, teachers, parents etc. 11) Formation of final key committee, which is other than paper setter committee and initial key committee. The final key Committee examines the question paper and options, key prepared by the paper setter, key prepared by the initial key committee and the responses received from the members of the society. The recommendations of the final key committee will be placed before the EAMCET Committee which is the decision making body. With the approval of the EAMCET committee the final key will be fed to the computer for valuation and the same final key will be released along with the results. The experts involved in the process of preparation of final key are the teachers of the respective subjects with more than 10 years of experience, not associated with any coaching or tutorial colleges and who maintain good academic and teaching records. The Final Key committee consists of group experts with a minimum of 4 members in each subject specialization and they focus only on to the questions related to their specialization. The constitution of such committee represents one or two teachers at Intermediate level, a teacher from Degree college level and one at University Professor level. 9. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that while arriving at the final key, the final key committee and EAMCET committee carefully decides the final key so that no genuine candidate is put to inconvenience and also keeping in mind that giving one liberal mark or indicating correct to a distracter also leads to injustice to the candidate who is correct. The Board of Intermediate education prescribed the text-books published by the Telugu Academy which is authorized publisher of Intermediate books. 10. Sri.T.Jagadish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that question Nos.88, 98, 104 and 114 and options shown therein are neither wrongly framed nor out of syllabi prescribed by the Board of Intermediate Education and hence arbitrary exercise of discretionary power to grant marks to all the candidates uniformly concerning question Nos.88, 98, 104 and 114 is demonstrably erroneous and hence awarding marks to all students uniformly violates equity clause. Placing reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court in KANPUR UNIVERSITY V. SAMIR GUPTA[2], MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION v. PARITOSH BHUPESHKUMAR SHETH[3] and the decisions of this Court in S.S.SUDHAKAR v. THE CONVENOR, EAMCET[4] and CONVENOR, JNT UNIVERSITY HYD. V C.SWARNALATHA[5] the learned counsel contends that the correctness of key answers should be ascertained from the standard and prescribed text books and not merely on the basis of inferences. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in S.S.Sudhakar v. The Convenor, EAMCET, held that if it is a case of doubt, the answers found in the Key should prevail, but if the matter is found to be beyond the realm of doubt, that means to say, that the answer found in the key is demonstrably to be wrong, then alone the case of the students should be accepted. Merely because on the same set of facts the Court comes to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the authority, the decision of the authority cannot be termed as unreasonable. In order to characterize a decision as unreasonable, a finding must be recorded that it was “so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it. In such a case, again, the court can interfere. The power of the Court to interfere in each case is not that of an appellate authority to over ride a decision of the local authority, but is that of a judicial authority. Para.9 of the judgment needs to be noted and it is thus: “9. Before we consider the correctness or otherwise of the contentions raised in respect of each of the above questions, we deem it appropriate to advert to the legal position. What are the parameters within which the power of judicial review could be exercised when questions arise regarding the correctness or otherwise of the answers prepared by the examiners. In Kanpur University vs. Samir Gupta (AIR 1983 SC 1230) the Supreme Court had to consider whether certain answers found in the key prepared by the examiners for the combined pre-medical test in Uttar Pradesh were correct or not. In the State of Uttar Pradesh, the papers set for the examinations related to ‘Multiple Choice Objective-type test’. The Allahabad High Court found that certain answers mentioned in the key were incorrect and that finding was arrived at with reference to the standard textbooks which were prescribed by the University for Intermediate students and also certain other standard textbooks. In the State of Uttar Pradesh for Intermediate course, standard books were prescribed. The key answers were published by the authorities in Uttar Pradesh along with the results, and the same constituted the foundation for arguments advance. When the High Court ruled that certain answers found in the key were incorrect, the matter was carried in appeal by the Kanpur University to the Supreme Court. On behalf of the University, it was contended that the Court should not entertain any argument relating to the correctness of the key answers unless, on the face of it, the same are shown to be wrong. Chief Justice Chandrachud, speaking for the Court, ruled: “We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. The contention of the University is falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged textbooks, which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those textbooks leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect.” The learned Judge held in the said judgment that if it is a case of doubt, the answers found in the Key should prevail, but if the mater is found to be beyond the realm of doubt, that means to say, that the answer found in the Key is demonstrably to be wrong, then alone the case of the students should be accepted. Merely because on the same set of facts the Court comes to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the authority, the decision of the authority cannot be termed as unreasonable. In order to characterize a decision as unreasonable, a finding must be recorded that it was “so unreasonable hat no reasonable authority could ever have come to it. In such a case, again, I think the Court can interfere. The power of the Court to interfere in each case is not that of an appellate authority to over-ride a decision of the loal authority, but is that of a judicial authority. (Held by Lord Green, M.R.) (1947 (2) All England Law Reports 680). 12. Sri T.Jagdish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.11957 of 2008 submits that the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, prescribed only syllabi of the various subjects and not prescribed the textbooks, which the students are expected to follow. In the absence of any prescribed textbooks, the students are at liberty to go through the books authored by renowned subject experts and know the contours of the syllabi from various sources. 13. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Convenor, EAMCET, submits that Telugu Academy published books for Intermediate Course and Colleges imparting intermediate course follow the Telugu Academy publications. 14. The Convenor, EAMCET, 2008 has specifically stated in the counter-affidavit that the textbooks prescribed by the Board of Intermediate published by Telugu Academy are referred to while preparing the key to the answers. Para.8 of the counter affidavit needs to be noted and it is thus: “8. I submit that the petitioner has contended that the information given in Telugu Academy text books is incorrect. This contention is wrong because the information given in Telugu Academy Text books is also supported by standard text books (such as Biochemistry by Powar & Chatwal, Himalaya Publishing House). Further the literature quoted by the petitioner in support of her contention is not from any text books, but only taken from some general web based articles and encyclopaedia. Further it is submitted that the material referred by the writ petitioner are beyond the reach of the students of intermediate education particularly rural and Telugu medium and those preparing for EAMCET examination. It is pertinent to bring to this Hon’ble Court notice that, out of 75,000 students who appeared for the EAMCET-2008 in Medical Stream only two students are before this Hon’ble Court contending that option (1) is correct and the rest of the students apparently have no grievance. The following are the references, which are basis for the conclusion. I.e., correct answer is option-4 to the aforesaid question . Ref: 1) 2nd Year Intermediate Book on Chemistry (English Medium) published by Telugu Academy – Page Nos. 116-118. 2) 2nd Year Intermediate Book on Chemistry (Telugu Medium) Published by Telugu Academy – Page Nos.117 – 119; 3) Biochemistry by Powar and Chatwal, 3rd Revised and Enlarged Edition, 1994, Himalaya Publishing House, Bombay, Delhi, Nagpur. Page No.361 – 364. “ 15. The learned Standing Counsel during the course of his arguments placed before me the books published by Telugu Academy in respect of Intermediate course. Even in the writ affidavit filed in support of the petition reference has been made to the books published by Telugu Academy. Therefore, it can be inferred that the books published by Telugu Academy are being read by the students pursuing Intermediate course through out the State. It is also not out of place to mention that out of 75,000 students appeared for EAMCET examinations in Medical Stream, only two students approached this Court complaining that final Key answers in respect of three questions are incorrect and awarding of marks to all the candidates uniformly in respect of four questions on the ground that options given thereto do not contain the correct answers is unjustified. It is trite to note the procedure adopted by the Convenor, EAMCET 2008, right from paper setting to the release of the final Key. The said procedure has been detailed