IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17-3-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR W.P.No.4847 of 2010 M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2010 Dr.V. Dharmalingam ... Petitioner Vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Fort St.George,Chennai – 9. 2. The Selection Committee, rep.by its Secretary, Directorate of Medical Education, 162, Periyar E.V.R.High Road, Kilpauk,Chennai – 600 010. ... Respondents PRAYER : This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ of Declaration to declare the entrance examination relating to the Tamil Nadu Post Graduate Degree/Diploma/MDS/5 year M.Ch (Neuro Surgery) Course Entrance Examination for 2010-2011 conducted by the second respondent on 21.2.2010 as null and void and direct the second respondent to conduct the examination afresh as prescribed in the prospectus after giving due notice to the petitioner. For petitioner : Mr.A.Meenakshi Sundaram For Respondents : Mrs.E.Ranganayaki Government Advocate(Edn.) O R D E R The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of Declaration to declare the entrance examination relating to the Tamil Nadu Post Graduate Degree/Diploma/MDS/5 year M.Ch (Neuro Surgery) Course Entrance examination for 2010-2011 conducted by the second respondent on 21.2.2010 as null and void and direct the second respondent to conduct the examination afresh as prescribed in the prospectus, after giving due notice to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The petitioner had passed M.B.B.S. Degree and PG Diploma in Child Health. He applied for selection to the Post Graduate degree course and appeared for the entrance examination conducted on 21.2.2010, for admission to the year 2010-2011 with registration No.64761. The results for the entrance test was declared in the internet on 23.2.2010 and the petitioner secured 51.8 marks out of 90 marks. Having not satisfied with the award of marks, the petitioner filed this writ petition with the above prayer. 3. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that in the prospectus issued for admission to 2010-2011, the scheme of entrance examination is stated in Clause 32 to 34 with a specific clause stating that there will be no negative marks for incorrect response and each question will carry one mark, and that zero mark will be awarded for the unanswered questions and no mark will be awarded for marking more than one answer, or if the marking is illegible. However, in the first page of the question booklet, it was mentioned that there will be negative marks for wrong answers. 4. According to the petitioner, on noticing the above, he had immediately enquired with the hall Supervisor about the discrepancy found in the question booklet, who said to have replied that he was not aware of the fact of the said change. Thereafter the petitioner proceeded with the examination. When the petitioner came out of the examination hall, he came to know that an announcement was made through loudspeakers that there will be no negative marks for wrong answers as stated in the prospectus. The petitioner asserted in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition that in his hall, no such announcement was made and therefore he was confused and restless, with the result, he left out about ten questions unanswered on the premise that if the answer happens to be incorrect there will be negative marks. According to the petitioner, the action of the second respondent in conducting entrance examination stating that there will be negative marks for the incorrect answers, is contrary to the instructions given to the candidates through the prospectus with regard to the scheme of examination, and the said action of the respondents, that too without any notice, has affected his rights and therefore the petitioner has prayed for declaration as stated above. 5. As a specific averment is made in the affidavit that there was no announcement in the hall in which petitioner wrote the entrance examination, when the writ petition was posted for admission on 10.3.2010, the learned Government Advocate was directed to take notice on behalf of the respondents and directed to get instructions, or to file counter affidavit with regard to the averments made by the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. On 12.3.2010, the learned Government Advocate (Education) filed the counter affidavit of the second respondent 10.3.2010. In the counter affidavit in paragraphs 3 and 4 it is stated as follows: "3. ....................... At the time of starting Examination, it was noted by the authorities that the instructions to the candidates in the question booklet contents that "Incorrect response will have negative marking", immediately, the authorities informed all the Examination Centres / Roomwise/ Candidate wise that there is no negative marks as stipulated in Clause 34 of the Prospectus. The above announcement was made by the invigilators who were attending each room/ each centres. Further, if any candidate asked doubt about negative marks in the booklets, the same has been immediately clarified by the authorities that there is no negative marks. Hence the statement that the petition is totally wrong and not acceptable. 4. It is submitted that for 250 questions, 0.36 marks for each question and total marks is 90. The petitioner attended 240 questions without knowing about negative marks, he must have secured 86.4 marks but his mark is only 51.84. As the petitioner knows that there is no negative marks then he has boldly answered 240 questions which shows that the announcement reached him also." 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the prospectus being the rule of selection, no deviation could be made by the respondents to change the pattern of examination viz., stating in the question booklet that incorrect answers will have negative marks, and thus the respondents have erred in not following the norms stated in the prospectus, which is the rule of selection and the same cannot be allowed to be changed on any account. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2006 (3) CTC 449 (Dr.M.Vennila v. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission). 8. In answer to the above submission, the learned Government Advocate (Education) appearing for the respondents submitted that an error has been committed in the question booklet by stating that incorrect response will have negative marks. However, immediately after noticing the same, on the instructions of the second respondent, every candidate was informed through the Invigilators in the examination halls that there will be no negative marks and the rules stated in para 34 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the prospectus will be strictly followed. The learned Government Advocate also submitted that no candidate other than the petitioner raised any dispute with regard to the announcement made by the Invigilator in the examination hall, as several thousands of candidates appeared for the entrance examination on 21.2.2010 and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to seek the declaration as prayed for, as the mistake was immediately rectified. 9. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate, on the facts of this case. 10. The legal submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the rule of selection cannot be altered after the rules are made known to the candidates, is well accepted. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2008 AIR SCW 1529 (K. Manjusree v. State of A.P.) and 2008 AIR SCW 3205 (Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi) considered similar issue with regard to the change of rule in the midst of selection process. In the first case, during the course of selection of the District and Sessions Judges to the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Service, minimum marks for passing written examination was fixed, for inviting candidates for oral test. The said procedure was treated as changing the rule of the game after the game was played and held that the same as impermissible. In the second case cited, insofar as selection to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, minimum marks were prescribed for oral test for selection of candidates, which was not made known in the rule of selection or instructions to candidates. The same was held as illegal as it is to be treated as changing the game of the rule after the game is commenced. 11. Here in this case, the rules, which govern the scheme of entrance examination are Clauses 32 to 34 in the prospectus, which read as follows: "32. Candidates seeking admission should write the Tamil Nadu P.G. Entrance Examination conducted by the Selection Committee. 33. The Entrance Examination will be of the undergraduate level covering all subjects and will contain 250 objectives type questions each with four responses (ABCD) (English Medium). Number of questions in each subject is as shown in the Annexure-III. 34. Each question will carry 1 (one) Mark. There will be No negative marks for incorrect responses. Zero marks will be given for questions not answered. When more than one https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ answer is indicated or when it is illegible, no mark will be awarded for that question. The Maximum marks will be computed to 90." The above extracted schemes of entrance examination clearly state that there will be no negative marks for incorrect responses. The question booklet supplied to the candidates was admittedly having a clause that there will be negative marks for wrong answers. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent it is stated that the statement contained in the question booklet was a mistake, and on noticing the same, even before the commencement of the examination, all the candidates were informed through the Invigilators of each room at each centre that there will be no negative marks for wrong answers. In fact no negative mark was awarded for the wrong answers made by the candidates, including the petitioner. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner attended 240 questions and for each question, the mark to be awarded is 0.36 as total marks being 90. If the 240 questions attended by the petitioner were without the knowledge about the announcement in the examination hall regarding awarding of no negative marks for wrong answers, he might not have secured 51.84 marks. Therefore, the petitioner was aware of the announcement made in the examination hall and only because of that he was bold enough to attend 240 questions. Had all the 240 questions were correctly answered by the petitioner, his marks would be 86.4 and not 51.84 marks. 12. It is to be further noted that though the entrance examination was conducted on 21.2.2010, the petitioner had not submitted any objection by way of representation to any of the respondents till the announcement of the results on 23.2.2010. The results having been announced on 23.2.2010 and the petitioner having secured only 51.84 out of 90 marks, he had chosen to file this writ petition on 8.3.2010. The above conduct of the petitioner in not writing to the respondents or any other authority before the announcement of the results of the entrance examination on 23.2.2010 raises an irrebuttable presumption that the petitioner was not mislead and he was aware of the fact that there will be no negative marks for the wrong answers. 13. In the light of the specific averments made by the second respondent in the counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner in the affidavit, I find no case is made out by the petitioner to grant the relief sought for in this writ petition. 14. Before parting with the case, I would like to point out that the respondents could have been more careful while printing the instructions in the question booklet to avoid confusion to the examinees, and I hope, in future such mistake will be avoided. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The writ petition is dismissed as the same is devoid of any merits. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 are also dismissed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar vr To 1. The Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. 2. The Secretary, Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, 162, Periyar E.V.R.High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai–600010. + 1 cc to M/s.A.Meenakshi, Advocate,SR.17570 W.P.No.4847 of 2010 GS(CO) EM/17.3.10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/