IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13318 of 2011(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER ------------------- SANDEEP.R(MINOR), RESIDING AT SURABHI, PUTHENPURA CROSS ROAD, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., KOCHI-682023, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER-GUARDIAN RENJITH.R BY ADVS. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SRI.DIPU.R SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY(CUSAT), REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CUSAT CAMPUS, KALAMASSERRY, KOCHI-22. 2. REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY(CUSAT) CUSAT CAMPUS,KALAMASSERRY, KOCHI-22. 3. DIRECTOR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND ACADEMIC ADMISSIONS, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KOCHI-22. R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI,SC,COCHI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO.12716/2011 & WPC NO.12532/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13318 of 2011(L) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------ EXT.P1. COPY OF THE ADMIT CARD. EXT.EXT.P2. COPY OF THE QUESTION BOOKLET ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE MATHEMATICS EXAMINATION. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE QUESTION BOOKLET ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY EXAMINATION. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE ENTRY DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE UNIVERSITY. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.5.2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ....................................................... W.P.(C)s.13318, 12532 & 12716/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 30th day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioners, students (two of whom are still minors), have approached this Court being unfortunate, in so far as their answer papers were refused to be valued by the University in connection with the Common Entrance Examination, 2011, held by the University for admission to the B.Tech Course. The pleadings and prayers are rather similar and hence all the three writ petitions have been heard together. 2. The sequence of events as narrated in the writ petitions shows that the petitioners participated in the Common Entrance Test held on 2.4.2011. The result was published on 19.4.2011, but the petitioners were not included in the Rank List. On enquiry, they were informed that they had not 'bubbled' the particular column where the test booklet series number had to be given; as a result of which, the identity of the answer sheets could not be read out in 'OMR reading'. The petitioners seek for interference of this Court explaining the particular facts and circumstances and seek for a chance to consider their candidature as well, based on their merits, contending that the W.P.(C)s.13318/11 & Connected Cases 2 stand taken by the University is not correct or proper. 3. The University has filed counter affidavit in W.P.(C). 12532/2011 (sought to be adopted in the other cases as well) pointing out that, there is absolutely no fault or lapse on the part of the University in not including the petitioners' name in the rank list, as they admittedly had failed to bubble the column enabling the OMR reader to pursue the matter further. Counter affidavit further says that, it is not a question of mere identity of the answer sheets of the candidates above, but the difficulty was to identify the series of question papers, ie, 'A', 'B' and 'C', for the 'OMR reader' to apply the correct key to have the answer paper valued and to have the result declared. The petitioners admittedly having not performed the duty cast upon them in bubbling the relevant column, there cannot be proper valuation of the answer sheets. 4. Sri.Thomas Abraham the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P.(C).12716/2011 & W.P.(C). 13318/2011 and Mr.P.Gopinath Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the other case submit that the stand pursued by the University is not proper; more so when most W.P.(C)s.13318/11 & Connected Cases 3 of the candidates who had taken part in the examination were 'minors', but for a few, and that apart, the answer papers were to be scrutinized by the Invigilators then and there, which would have brought the defect to light, had they been vigilant in this regard. Omission on the part of the Invigilator is equally contributory in this regard and seeks for intervention of this Court, pointing out that no prejudice whatsoever will be caused to anybody else and that the very purpose of the examination is to find out the most suitable, eligible and meritorious candidates. 5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the University taking earnest effort has identified the answer papers of the petitioners and the same in the case of W.P.(C).12532/2011 has been produced before this Court in a sealed cover, which is now in the custody of the Registrar, as ordered by this Court; while those in respect of the other writ petitioners are admittedly with the learned Standing Counsel. Since the petitioners are only three in number, the discretionary power is sought to be exercised in favour of the petitioners, for causing the answer sheets to be considered and evaluated by the University after having the column bubbled or by causing the same to be valued manually. W.P.(C)s.13318/11 & Connected Cases 4 6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University vehemently opposes the prayer sought for, stating that there being no fault on the part of the University, no writ of mandamus could be issued. It is also apprehended that, it would otherwise be stated as a precedent, if any interference is made by this Court, extending the relief to the petitioners. 7. With regard to the issue in question, this Court is well aware of the effect of non-bubbling of the requisite column in the answer papers by the candidates who take part in the examination conducted by the PSC and the law declared by this Court on the point; which does not favour the petitioners. But here, the question is whether the same course has to be pursued in the present case as well, when the persons like the petitioners are mostly minors and when they are in pursuit of their Educational career. 8. It is true, that there is no primary lapse on the part of the University but for the probable lapse, on the part of the Invigilator for not having verified the answer sheets as to whether they had been returned by the students after bubbling, W.P.(C)s.13318/11 & Connected Cases 5 as instructed. Considering the particular facts and circumstances and the fate of the children, this Court finds that the law need not be applied by its letters and that some leniency can be given to them; especially when no prejudice whatsoever will be caused to anybody else and further when the Answer sheets have already been identified. The remaining step is only with regard to the valuation; which can be got done either by bubbling the requisite column by the University so as to have it valued through OMR reader or by getting it valued manually. 9. The learned Standing Counsel for the University submits that answer sheet of the petitioner in W.P.(C).12532/2011 has already been produced before this Court in a sealed cover (kept in the custody of the Registrar); while the answer sheets of the other two petitioners, kept in similar sealed cover are in the custody of the Standing Counsel, who offered that the same can be produced before this Court, if necessary. 10. In the above circumstances, the University is directed to have the Answer Sheets of the petitioners valued forthwith, giving proper placement to the petitioners in the Rank List; based on their credentials and consider them accordingly in connection W.P.(C)s.13318/11 & Connected Cases 6 with the selection and allotment process. Proceedings shall be finalized as above, before the last date fixed for finalizing the option. 11. Answer paper of the petitioner in W.P.(C).12532/2011 produced by the learned Standing Counsel in the Court and kept in the custody of the Registrar as ordered by this Court, is returned to the learned Standing Counsel for pursuing further steps. 12. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything with regard to the legal position and that, this verdict will not be treated as a precedent. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge mrcs