IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 22ND BHADRA 1932 WA.No. 1544 of 2010 ------------------------ AGAINST JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.22717/2010 DATED 28/7/2010 ................ APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- SHEJI DAS S.S., S/O/SOMAN, 'SHEJI BHAVAN', ERAVUKADU, THIRUVAMBADY P.O. ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, L.B.S. CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM-695 033. R1 & R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 1544 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. Aggrieved by judgment dated 28.07.2010, the unsuccessful writ petitioner preferred this appeal. The challenge in the writ petition is regarding the legality of a system of examination adopted by the respondents herein. An examination known as “SET-2010” was conducted by the respondents. It appears that the pass in the said examination is one of the eligibility criterion for appointment of teachers in the Higher Secondary Schools of the State. The allegation in the writ petition is that the percentage of pass in the abovementioned examination is only 5.90%. The petitioner alleges that such a low passage of candidates is attributable to two factors, (1) that the system of negative marks for wrong answers is adopted and (2) that some of the questions given in the examination, according to the petitioner, are beyond the syllabus. WA No. 1544 of 2010 -:2:- 2. It may be mentioned here that the system of negative marking is adopted in the context of an examination paper where the candidate is required to choose the correct answer from the multiple choices indicated. The learned counsel submits that the system of negative marking was found not suitable by the University Grants Commission in some other context and therefore the respondents are not justified in adopting such system. 3. We presume for the sake of argument that the University Grants Commission did find so in some context, though we are not very clear from the writ petition why the University Grants Commission came to such conclusion, but in the context of the examination where a candidate is required to choose the correct answer from out of multiple answers indicated in the paper, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the adoption of the system of negative marking. If such a system is not adopted, there is always the possibility of candidates simply choosing a correct answer on the basis of conjectures without any knowledge. WA No. 1544 of 2010 -:3:- 4. Coming to the second submission that some of the questions are beyond the syllabus, no concrete ground is brought to the notice of this Court in this regard. Apart from that how many such questions exist and how such questions prejudiced the result of the examination is not clearly alleged. It also appears from the record that only in recognition of the fact that some of the questions are out of syllabus, the respondents have already awarded moderation of 12 marks, a fact which is admitted by the writ petitioner in prayer No.3 of the writ petition. In the circumstances, we do not see any merit in the appeal and therefore the same is dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb WA No. 1544 of 2010 -:4:-