IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15/06/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA WRIT PETITION NO.14587 of 2004 and WRIT PETITIONS NOS.14588 to 14593, 14703, 14741, 14747, 14796, 14807, 14815, 14819, 14820, 14833, 14834, 14860, 14898, 14899, 14900, 14913 to 14916, 14937, 14950, 14966, 14971, 14973, 14976, 14996, 14997, 150 14 to 15017, 15020, 15037, 15039, 15040, 15041, 15046, 15047, 15053, 15067, 15071 to 15076, 15081, 15084, 15086, 15089, 15090, 15100, 1511 1, 15114, 15115 to 15124, 15131, 15132, 15134, 15142, 15145, 15147, 1 5148, 15149, 15151, 15176, 15178, 15187, 15188, 15197, 15198, 15199, 15206, 15207, 15215, 15222 to 15226, 15229 to 15233, 15235, 15242, 1 5247, 15252, 15257 to 15262, 15287, 15291 to 15293, 15297, 15298, 153 05, 15306, 15309 to 15311, 15313, 15314, 15316, 15323, 15335, 15345, 15347, 15350, 15353, 15357, 15358, 15361, 15363 to 15365, 15373, 1537 4 to 15383, 15390, 15391, 15393, 15397, 15417, 15418, 15422, 15425, 1 5432, 15436, 15437, 15446, 15448, 15470, 15471, 15488, 15489, 15497, 15498, 15499, 15500, 15502, 15505, 15506, 15507, 15514, 15529, 15530, 15531, 15532, 15540, 15543, 15549, 15559, 15560, 15561, 15562, 15571 , 15572 to 15575, 15577, 15583, 15590, 15603, 15606, 15627, 15636, 15 637, 15639, 15648, 15663, 15666, 15667, 15668, 15669, 15670, 15697, 1 5699, 15700, 15702, 15274, 15727, 15730, 15758, 15759, 15778 to 15780 , 15787, 15790, 15792, 15794, 15796, 15802, 15807, 15821, 15822, 1582 5, 15826, 15842, 15844, 15845, 15847, 15852, 15854, 15859, 15878 to 1 5880, 15883, 15888, 15904 to 15907, 15908, 15919, 15920, 15921 to 159 23, 15924, and 15925, 15926 and 15929 of 2004 AND W.P.M.P.Nos. 17292 to 17303, 17435, 17479, 17551, 17552, 17563, 17573 , 17576, 17577, 17590 to 17592, 17615, 17619, 17683 to 17686, 17698 to 17701, 17718, 17719, 17733, 17750, 17754, 17756, 17759, 17788, 1778 9, 17809 to 17815, 17818, 17847, 17848, 17850 to 17854, 17860, 17861, 17868, 17879, 17896, 17897, 17899, 17902, 17905, 17906, 17908, 17909 , 17918, 17932, 17935, 17938 to 17947, 17955, 17956, 17958, 17970, 17 973, 17975 to 17977, 17979, 18010, 18013, 18026, 18028, 18042, 18044, 18057, 18058, 18068, 18078 to 18085, 18088 to 18092, 18094, 18101, 1 8107, 18113, 18118 to 18124, 18156, 18160 to 18162, 18167 to 18169, 1 8173 to 18182, 18185, 18193, 18202, 18214, 18216, 18218, 18224, 18230 to 18232, 18235 to 18239, 18250, 18251, 18257 to 18259, 18260, 18267 to 18269, 18271, 18275, 18311, 18312, 18313, 18320, 18323, 18332, 18 333, 18334, 18343, 18345, 18365, 18366, 18384, 18397, 18399, 18402, 1 8405, 18406, 18407, 18415, 18430, 18431, 18432, 18433, 18440, 18444, 18455, 18471, 18472, 18473, 18474, 18486, 18487 to 18490, 18493, 1849 9, 18500, 18509, 18524, 18527, 18554, 18565, 18566, 18567, 18579, 185 93, 18597, 18598, 18599, 18600, 18601, 18634, 18636, 18637, 18659, 18 662, 18663, 18668, 18700, 18701, 18725 to 18727, 18745, 18747, 18750, 18763, 18764, 18765, 18782, 18783, 18786, 18787, 18811, 18813, 18814 , 18817, 18821, 18823, 18830, 18860 to 18862, 18866, 18872, 18892 to 18895, 18896, 18907, 18908, 18910 to 18912, 18913 and 18914 of 2004 D. Shylaja .. Petitioner in WP.14587/04 -Vs- 1. The Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Secretary, TNPCEE 2004, Anna University, Guindy, Chennai 3. 3. The Secretary, Selection Committee for admission to MBBS Course, 162, Periyar EVR High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 10. .. Respondents in WP.14587/04 Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus as stated therein. For Petitioners : Mr.K.M. Vijayan Senior Counsel for M/s. La & Law : Mr.R. Viduthalai : Mr.S. Ayyathurai : Mr.K. Doraisami Senior Counsel for M/s. Muthumani Doraisami : Mr.T.R. Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for Mrs. Chitra Sampath : Mr.S. Nagamuthu for Ms.M. Vimala ^For Respondent (Anna University) : Mr.G. Masilamani Senior Counsel for M/s.G.M. Associates For Respondents : Mr.V.R. Rajasekaran Special Govt. Pleader (Edn) :COMMON JUDGMENT In these writ petitions filed by the students seeking admission to M.B.B.S and B.D.S. Course, the primary prayer is for a direction to the respondents for revaluation of the answer sheets of the Tamil Nadu Professional Courses Entrance Examination, 2004, hereinafter referred to as the Entrance Examination and consequently to conduct counselling and allot the students to M.B.B.S and other medical and paramedical courses for the academic year 2004-2005 based on the marks awarded on such revaluation. 2. Before considering the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for Anna University and the Secretary of the Selection Committee for Medical Education, it would be appropriate to notice certain undisputed facts. The admission to professional courses takes place on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in the relevant streams in the qualifying examination along with the marks obtained by the candidates in the Entrance Examination held by the Anna University. So far as admission to M.B.B.S and other allied courses is concerned, marks obtained by the students in such qualifying examinations in Physics, Chemistry and Biology are taken into consideration. The marks calculated for physical sciences namely, Physics and Chemistry are 100 and 100 marks for biology. Similarly, the total marks available in the Entrance Examination is 100 marks out of which 50 marks are allotted to Physics and Chemistry together and 50 marks for biology. In the Entrance Examination, the method of test is by "Objective Method". In other words, questions are set and the students are to select the correct answer from the answers furnished in the question paper itself. Full mark is awarded to the students, who indicate the correct answer, but no negative marks is awarded for any wrong answer. For the present year, 1 20 questions had been set for Physical Sciences paper namely Physics and Chemistry and 140 questions had been set for Biology paper. As per the usual practice, questions are selected from the question bank. The paper setters, who contribute to the question bank furnish the correct answer along with the question and such correct answer is known as "key answer". After the examinations were held in the month of May, 2004, the University constituted several committees consisting of experts in the particular field to review the questions set and the key answers furnished by the paper setters. After such an exercise was undertaken, the various committees found certain defects in the questions or the answers and accordingly, recommended for deletion of certain questions and also suggested certain correct answers where they did not agree with the answer suggested by the paper setter. For convenience, such revised answers may be described as "revised key answers". Accordingly, as per the suggestions of the committees, it was decided to delete two questions relating to Biology and 13 questions relating to Physical Sciences. Certain "revised key answers" were also suggested and the process of evaluation of the answer sheets has taken place on the basis of the key answer ultimately approved by such committees. Since the number of valid questions had become less than the questions set, it was also decided to distribute the marks relatable to the deleted questions to other "valid questions". It is not necessary to indicate at this stage the precise reasons for the deletion of the questions or for suggesting revised correct answers as it would be more appropriate to consider those aspects while considering the individual questions and answers concerned. Suffice it to state that the decision of the Committee to delete certain questions is primarily based on the conclusion of the Committee that those questions were inappropriately worded and are likely to create confusion in the mind of the students and in respect of certain questions, there were more than one correct answer and in respect of certain questions, the English version of the question paper did not tally with its Tamil version and some questions, all the suggested answers were incorrect. 3. The main contentions of the learned counsels appearing for the various students are to the following effect: (i) Many of the questions which had been properly set had been illegally and arbitrarily omitted. (ii)Some of the questions, which were beyond the prescribed syllabus have not been deleted from the arena of consideration. (iii) Instead of deleting questions which contain more than one correct answer, mark should have been awarded to the students who had indicated any one of the correct choices. (iv)The answers suggested by the Committee appointed by the University are incorrect. The petitioners have also questioned the propriety of the Committee in suggesting redistribution of the marks for the deleted questions. The suggestions of the learned counsels are manifold. Many have submitted that an expert committee should be appointed to review the reports of the various committees. A few have suggested that a fresh entrance examination be held and some have submitted, less with conviction and more with sheer optimism, that Entrance Examination be scrapped and the selection be made on the basis of result in the qualifying examination alone. 4. Before considering in detail the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners and Respondents, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant decisions throwing light on the legal aspect involved in such matters. The first and foremost decision appears to be the decision of the Supreme Court in KANPUR UNIVERSITY V. SAMIR GUPTA (AIR 1983 SC 1230). In the said decision, it had been successfully contended by the students before the High Court that some of the key answers furnished by the paper setter were in fact incorrect and the correct answers furnished by the students had not been considered because such answers did not tally with the wrong key answers. One of the questions also related to discrepancy between the English version and the Hindi version. The High Court had directed that marks should be awarded to the students for the questions concerned as answers furnished by the students were found to be correct in preference to the answers suggested by the paper setter. While considering the scope of such matters, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University, contended that no challenge should be allowed to be made to the correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. 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 rationalisation. 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 are commonly read by students in U.P. Those text books leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect. 17. Students who have passed their intermediate Board Examination are eligible to appear for the Entrance Test for admission to the medical colleges in U.P. Certain books are prescribed for the intermediate Board Examination and such knowledge of the subjects as the students have is derived from what is contained in those text books. Those text books support the case of the students fully. If this were a case of doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred the key answer. But, if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalise the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong. 18. If the State Government wants to avoid a recurrence of such lapses, it should compile under its own auspices a text-book which should be prescribed for students desirous of appearing for the combined Pre-Medical Test. Education has more than its fair share of politics, which is the bane of our Universities. Numerous problems are bound to arise in the compilation of such a text-book for, various applicants will come forward for doing the job and forces and counter-forces will wage a battle on the question as to who should be commissioned to do the work. If the State can succeed in overcoming those difficulties, the argument will not be open to the students that the answer contained in the text-book which is prescribed for the test is not the correct answer. Secondly, a system should be devised by the State Government for moderating the key answers furnished by the paper setters. Thirdly, if English questions have to be translated into Hindi, it is not enough to appoint an expert in the Hindi language as a translator. The translator must know the meaning of the scientific terminology and the art of translation. Fourthly, in a system of ' Multiple Choice Objective-type test', care must be taken to see that questions having an ambiguous import are are not set in the papers. That kind of system of examination involves merely the tick-marking of the correct answer. It leaves no scope for reasoning or argument. The answer is 'yes' or 'no'. That is why the questions have to be clear and unequivocal. Lastly, if the attention of the University is drawn to any defect in a key answer or any ambiguity in a question set in the examination, prompt and timely decision must be taken by the University to declare that the suspect question will be excluded from the paper and no marks assigned to it." (emphasis added) 5. The aforesaid decision appears to have been uniformly followed in many subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court and of different High Courts including the Madras High Court. In the light of the aforesaid principle, the contentions raised by the various petitioners have to be examined. 6. In the question paper relating to Biology, the questions bearing No.27 and 33, in the question paper version MA-7 have been deleted on the ground that the questions have more than one correct answer. Even though initially some of the petitioners wanted to contend that the questions have only one correct answer as suggested by the paper setter himself, ultimately the Advocates have fairly conceded that the concerned questions had more than one correct answers as opined by the committee of experts. In respect to Question No.27 reference has been made to page-132 of Biology textbook of Higher Secondary second year which is the approved text book. On going through the relevant pages of the said text book, there can be no two opinion regarding the fact that in respect of Question No.27, there were more than one correct answers. Likewise pages 185, 186, 187, 188 of the very same book clearly indicate that there are more than one correct answers for question No.33. 7. Coming to the Physical Science paper, question No.11 in version code BS6 has been deleted on the ground that such question had two correct choices. Such opinion is bolstered by the discussion at Pages 69 and 70 of the Tamilnadu Higher Secondary Second Year Physics Text book. The learned counsels appearing for the various petitioners also do not challenge such reasoning given by the expert committee. In respect of question No.80 relating to version code BS6, the opinion of the expert committee is also to the effect that in the form in which the question had been put, choice 1 and 2 are correct choices. This opinion is found to be appropriate keeping in view the discussion at page-148 of the Tamilnadu Higher Secondary, second year Chemistry Text book. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners have also not disputed the aforesaid position. Similarly in respect of version code BS6, Question No.106, the opinion of the expert committee is to the effect that choice 1 and 3 are correct. This opinion is justified in view of discussion at page-349 of the said Text book. The learned Advocates appearing for the various petitioners have not disputed the aforesaid position. The expert committee has also suggested to delete question Nos.64 relating to version code BS6 on the ground that the questions have got more than one correct answers. However, the learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners do not accept such opinion and contend otherwise. It is therefore necessary to examine these two questions in depth. 8. The question No.64 (BS6) is to the following effect: "Q: Outer electronic configuration of four elements A,B,C and D is given below. Which among them, can form multiple bonds? 1. A...[He]2s2 2s3 2. B...[Ne]3s2 3p3 3. C...[Ar]4s2 4p3 4. D...[Kr]5s2 5s3 " According to the opinion furnished by the expert committee, option-1 and 2 are correct options. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners however contended that option-1 is the only correct answer. According to them, as per the Chemistry Text Book prescribed for the Tamilnadu Higher Secondary course, option-1 is the only correct answer, but the expert committee apart from accepting option-1 as one of the correct options has indicated that option-2 is also correct. For the aforesaid opinion, the expert committee has relied upon the text book prescribed for CBSC course. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have contended that since as per the information Booklet issued by the University, the questions are based on the syllabus and text book of the Higher Secondary Course of Tamilnadu, the discussion made in the book prescribed for CBSC course cannot be accepted as correct. It is submitted by them that in case of any conflict between the book prescribed for Higher Secondary course in Tamilnadu and in the book prescribed for CBSC, the former has to be preferred in view of the prospectus. In my opinion, such submission made on behalf of the counsel for the petitioners is not acceptable. As a matter of fact, there is no real contradiction between the two books. The book prescribed by the CBSC only furnishes an additional answer to the effect that the element phosphorous coming within the option-2 of the question paper is capable of forming multiple bonds. Therefore, the opinion furnished by the expert committee cannot be characterised as apparently wrong opinion and I am inclined to accept the contention of the University that question No.64 in version code BS6 has two correct answers, viz., Option 1 and 2. 10. Question No.77 in version code BS6 is to the following effect: "The enthalpy of combustion of butane is -2890 kJ at STP. The amount of heat liberated when 1.12 x 10-2 m3 of butane is completely burnt at STP is: 1.-4445 kJ 2. 1445kJ 3.-2890kJ 4.2890kJ." The petitioners contend that Option No. 1 to the effect -1445kJ is the correct option as indicated by the original paper setter himself. However, the expert committee of the University has opined "....... the word amount has no sign since the amount refer to unsigned integer." According to the expert committee answer No.2 can also be a correct option. Answer No.2 to the effect "1445kJ" can also be a correct option, because the word amount has no sign. This opinion of the expert committee is also fortified by the relevant pages at P-130-1 31 of the Chemistry Text Book. In my view, since such opinion of the committee is not demonstrated to be incorrect, I accept the opinion of the committee to the effect that option 1 and 2 are correct in view of the manner in which the questions had been framed. 11. The important question is whether such questions should be deleted from consideration or whether marks should be awarded to the students who have indicated any of the correct options. It is the contention of the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners that the question which contains more than one correct answer should not have been deleted from consideration, but credit should have been given to the students who have correctly indicated any of the correct option as distinguished from students who had indicated a wrong option or had not indicated any option at all. The learned counsels have relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court reported in 2003 WLR 799 (V.SAMYA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS), AIR 1994 Orissa 117 ( MISS. UMA PATNAIK AND OTHERS Vs. CONVENOR, MBBS./BDS SELECTION BOARDcum-PRINCIPAL, SCB MEDICAL COLLEGE) and 1989 All.L.J. 801 (PANKAJ BHALLA Vs. ROHILKHAND UNIVERSITY, BAVEILLY). 12. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the University has however submitted that the University had decided to delete all such questions containing more than one correct option, on the basis of the decision of this Court dated 25-10-2000 in WP.No.13528 of 2000 and other connected matters. He has also submitted in course of hearing, that the Supreme Court decision reported in 1983 SC 1230 (supra) supports his contention. The rival contentions on this aspect require careful consideration. 13. It has been rightly emphasised out by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the university, albeit, in a different context, that the main intention of the entrance examination is not merely passing a particular examination, but to select the more meritorious students. It has to be kept in view that in the entrance examination conducted by the University, there is no negative marking. In other words, even if a student gives a wrong answer, no mark is deducted from other marks obtained by him in respect of the correct answers. The basic contention of the learned counsel for the University is that if more than one correct option is provided in the question, the student will be confused and in all likelihood may not indicate any answer. Such a submission may appear to be reasonable in a case where negative mark is awarded for a wrong answer. However, where no negative mark is awarded, a student need not fear even if he gives a wrong answer and in fact a student is encouraged to give answer by marking the answer which he thinks to be correct without any fear of being penalised for giving a wrong answer. Evidently if a student knows an answer which is one of the possible correct answers, such student would indicate the appropriate answer which he considers to be correct. If the answer indicated is one of the correct answer, the student obtains marks for the said question and a student who indicates a wrong answer or does not indicate any answer at all does not get any credit nor there is any debit. In other words, mark is being awarded to a student who knows at least one of the correct answers and no mark is awarded to a student who does not know any of the correct answers. Since the intention of the examination is to find out a more meritorious student, this approach would obviously advance the main intention behind holding such examination. This is not to suggest that in objective type of questions containing multiple options as answers, the paper setter should pose such questions which are capable of being answered in more ways than one. While all attempts should be made to eschew such questions before the papers are actually set, if per chance, the question paper contains questions capable of being answered in more ways than one, the subsequent deletion of such question would not advance the cause of basic quest for selecting a more meritorious student. On the other hand, by deleting such questions, a less meritorious student who has indicated a wrong option would receive the same benefit as a student who has indicated a correct option which would not advance the cause of justice and fair play and shall defeat the very purpose for which such examinations are held. 14. As already indicated, the learned counsel appearing for the University has vehemently contended that the earlier decision of this Court in WP.No.13528 of 2000 mandates the University to delete questions containing more than one correct answers. However, after carefully going through the decision cited by the learned counsel for the