IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32040 of 2011(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RENJINI.P, D/O. KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 27 YEARS, CHAKKALOTH HOUSE, P.O. ERAVU, THRISSUR-680620. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETRY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3. THE DIRECTOR, LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, PALAYAM, NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN - 695 033. ADV. SRI.LEO GEORGE,SC,LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENC FOR R3 SC SRI.P.B.SURESHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 32040 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS OF SET 2011 EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT SLIP EXHIBIT-P3-TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OBTAINED FROM WEB SITE EXHIBIT-P4-TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI THOZHILVARTHA DATED 12/11/2011 EXHIBIT-P5-TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER KEYS OF SET 2011 EXHIBIT-P6-TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS IN MALAYALA MANORMA DAILY DATED 21/11/2011 EXHIBIT-P7-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10/10/2011 BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 /true copy/ P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).32040/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 14th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner attempted for the 'SET' Examination held in September, 2011. Ext.P1 is the prospectus. As per the provisions of the prospectus, a candidate should get the aggregated 50% marks and separate minimum of 35% marks in each of the papers. For paper-I, out of 120 marks, petitioner secured 68.25 marks. For paper-II, out of 115 marks, against the minimum required 40.25, petitioner secured only 39.75 marks. As a result, she failed in the examination. The grievance of the petitioner is that insofar as the 2nd paper is concerned, initially, the total marks was 120 and that questions concerning 5 marks, were deleted after the examination and even after the publication of the answer keys. Petitioner submits that she had answered those questions correctly and that if marks for those questions were also reckoned, she will have more than the minimum required 35% marks. It is therefore, that after making Ext.P7 complaint, this writ petition has been filed to declare the deletion of five questions of Paper-II, illegal and for other consequential reliefs. W.P.(C).32040/11 2 2. However the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent relied on clause 14.1 and 14.2 of Ext.P1 prospectus which read as under:- 14.1.Publication of Answer Keys The answer keys of all subjects shall be published in the official website of the LBS Centre immediately after the examination. Complaints, if any, from the candidates regarding the answer keys may be sent to the Director, LBS Centre, in writing, within five working days from the date of publication of the keys. Complaints not substantiated with supporting documents will not be entertained. The complaints, if any, received from the candidates will be placed before a panel of experts constituted by the Director, LBS Centre and the decision of the experts shall be final. Complaints received after five working days from the date of publication of answer keys will not be entertained. 14.2. Exclusion of Question/s from Evaluation The Director, LBS Centre is authorized to exclude from evaluation any question or questions found to be wrong or question/s with answers not appropriate, as recommended by the panel of experts. When a question/s is/are excluded from evaluation, the mark/s allotted to that question/s is/are also excluded from evaluation. 3. It is submitted that by virtue of the aforesaid provisions of the prospectus, the questions for five marks were deleted based on the recommendation of the experts and that therefore, the marks for those questions were rightly excluded. W.P.(C).32040/11 3 4. Candidates appearing for the 'SET' Examination are bound by the terms of the prospectus. Prospectus contains the provisions for deletion of questions and exclusion of the marks assigned, in the circumstances pointed out in clause 14.1 and 14.2 of the prospectus. It is in pursuance to the aforesaid provisions, the questions for five marks were deleted from Paper-II. If that be so, total marks could have been only 150 and the petitioner having secured only 39.5, cannot impugn either the deletion of the questions or seek any consequential reliefs. Writ petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs /true copy/ P.A. To Judge