IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 WA.No. 1469 of 2008 ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.19238/2008 DATED 26-6-2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- TONY SIMON, S/O.DR.SIMON, SONY COTTAGE, BALARAMAPURAM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN SRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS EDUCATION SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ----------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1469 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 15th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT A.K.Basheer, J. The appellant who had appeared for the Common Entrance Test to the medical course in Professional Colleges had filed the writ petition, contending inter alia, that the decision taken by the expert committee in respect of question Nos.85 and 90 ought not to have been accepted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations. The first prayer in the writ petition was to issue a declaration that the action of the respondents in revising the answer key for the above questions under Ext.P6 for Biology -Paper-II was arbitrary and unreasonable. He further prayed to issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6. The further prayer was to direct the respondents to evaluate the answer paper of the petitioner on the basis of the initial key published and determine his rank/position in the rank list accordingly. It was also prayed that Ext.P12 order issued by the Commissioner be quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari. 2. The learned Single Judge after a careful examination of the pleadings and arguments on either side, took the view that the contentions raised by the appellant were totally untenable. Accordingly, W.A.No.1469/2008 -2- the writ petition was dismissed. While doing so, the learned Judge had referred to the relevant clause in the prospectus which dealt with the disputes relating to the answer keys. In this context, the learned Judge had also extracted the relevant portion of Ext.P12 order. Clause 9.7 which deals with declaration of results and sub clauses 1, 2, 3 thereof in particular, were considered by the learned Judge. Clause 9.7.3. stipulates that all complaints received with regard to the disputes regarding answer keys shall be referred to an expert committee to be constituted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations. It was further stipulated in the said clause that the recommendation of the expert committee will be final. 3. It is on record that the dispute regarding question Nos.85 and 90 were referred to the expert committee. The committee found that the answer keys published in respect of the above two questions were incorrect. The report of the expert committee was accepted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations and accordingly, changes were made thereafter. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the objection raised by the appellant ought to have been reflected in the report of the committee. The committee ought to have stated the reasons as to why the answers pointed out by the appellant were incorrect W.A.No.1469/2008 -3- or that the answers as reflected in the NCERT text book were also incorrect. That ought to have been stated or reflected in Ext.P12. Therefore, the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations was not justified in accepting the report, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. We are unable to agree. The committee which comprised of experts had considered the issue and submitted the report. The mere fact that the views or the opinion of the appellant was not reflected in the order of the Commissioner is not a reason to set aside the same. 5. Having perused the materials available on record, particularly the relevant clauses in the prospectus and also Ext.P12 report, we do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the learned Single judge. There is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the appellant. The writ appeal fails, and it is accordingly dismissed. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS