IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN SATURDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2010 / 10TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 1745 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.24828/2007 Dated 14/03/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ LINCY MATHEW, AGED 30, VETTITHITTA KIZHAKKEVEEDU, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BENOY THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WPC --------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRPESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PASS BOARD FOR STATE ELIGIBILITY TEST 2007,REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION DEPT), GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. DIRECTOR, LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF LBS TRIVANDRUM GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.01.2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.1745 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 30th January, 2010. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is appellant. She was a candidate who took the State Eligibility Test (for short, 'SET'), held by the respondents, in May, 2007. The said examination has two papers. The first paper is general for all candidates, irrespective of their optional subjects. The second paper is concerning the subject of specialization. In the case of the appellant, her subject of specialization was Mathematics. As per Ext.P1 Prospectus, for the first paper, there would be 100 questions and 100 marks. For the second paper, for all subjects, except Mathematics and Statistics, there would be 120 questions and 120 marks. In the case of Mathematics and Statistics, there would be 80 questions and 120 marks. The relevant clauses, dealing with the aforementioned aspects are contained in paragraphs 9.1 and 9.4 in Ext.P1 Prospectus. Those paragraphs are quoted below, for easy reference. “9.1. There will be two papers for the SET 2007. Paper I is common for all candidates. It consists of two parts. Part(A)--General Knowledge and Part (B)-Aptitude in WA NO.1745/08 2 Teaching. The duration of Paper I will be of 90 minutes and the total number of questions will be 100(50+50) as per the details published along with the Prospectus. Paper II will be a Test based on the subject of specialization of the candidate at PG Level, prepared on the basis of a common syllabi as published along with the Prospectus. The duration of the Test will be 120 minutes and the total number of questions will be 120 except for Mathematics and Statistics, where there will be only 80 questions with each question carrying 1.5 score. 9.4. For each correct response the candidates will be awarded 1 mark in both the Papers. More than one answer indicated against a question will be deemed as incorrect. There is no negative mark for wrong answer.” In the question booklet for Mathematics, which was produced as Ext.P2 in the writ petition, one of the instructions to the candidates was that, one question will carry one mark, which meant that, for 80 questions, there will be a total of 80 marks. The said instruction is given as instruction No.6 in Ext.P2 question booklet. Instruction No.6 reads as follows:- “For every correct answer 1 mark will be awarded. No deduction of mark will be made for unanswered questions and incorrect answers. Marking of more than one bubble against a question number in the OMR sheet will result in the exclusion of that answer from valuation.” If the total marks for Mathematics paper is taken as 80, instead of 120, the appellant may clear the examination, and if it is taken as 120 marks, as stipulated in the prospectus, she will fail in the examination, it is submitted. Therefore, the said clause in Ext.P2 WA NO.1745/08 3 question paper, which is different from the stipulation in Ext.P1 prospectus, had become crucial, as far as the appellant was concerned. The appellant claimed that she went by the instructions in the question paper, as it was the latest in point of time. Based on those instructions, she wrote the examination, and therefore, the respondents should be compelled to stick to the instructions in the question paper, and consider her results accordingly, it was submitted. 2. But, the LBS Centre for Science and Technology, the third respondent, which was the agency which held the examination, submitted that it was in fact a mistake. For all other subjects, the stipulation that one correct answer will carry one mark was valid. But, in the case of Mathematics and Statistics, the instruction given to the candidates in the question paper in that regard, should have been modified. By an inadvertent omission, that was not done, it was submitted. According to the respondents, the prospectus would prevail and therefore, the results were prepared correctly, in accordance with the prospectus. WA NO.1745/08 4 3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, upheld the contentions of the third respondent. The relevant portion of the judgment is contained in paragraphs 12 to 14. The said portion of the judgment reads as follows :- “12. Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.23589, 24828, 27827, 30440 and 32966 of 2007 have raised another question relating to the allotment of marks for different questions. This has reference to the interpretation of paragraphs 9.1 and 9.4 of the prospectus. In para 9.1, it is stated that the duration of the test will be 120 minutes and the total number of questions will be 120 except for Mathematics and Statistics where there will be only 80 questions with each question carrying 1.5 score. It is pointed out that in the question paper (produced as Ext.P2 in W.P.(C) No.27827/2007), in column No.6, it is stated that “for every correct answer 1 mark will be awarded”. The contention raised is that they are bound to comply with the said clause in Ext.P2 and cannot adopt the stipulation contained in para 9.1 of the prospectus. 13. In the statement filed by the respondents, they have pointed out that going by the prospectus, the provisions contained in para 9.1 allows them to allot 1.5 marks for each question for Mathematics and Statistics. It is also explained that prior to SET May 2007, all the subjects of Paper II had 120 questions carrying 1 mark each. During the previous years the pass percentage for the subjects Mathematics and Statistics was very low. One of the reasons attributed to this low pass percentage was that students did not get enough time to answer 120 questions with a time span of 2 hours. Considering the request of the candidates, the Government decided to reduce the number of questions of Mathematics and Statistics from 120 to 80, so that each question shall carry 1.5 marks to make the total for paper II at 120 marks as in the case of other subjects. It is also explained that at the time of printing the question papers, the instruction to the candidates could not be suitably modified to include the change in the allotment of marks for these two subjects due to oversight. They received several complaints regarding this from the candidates. But since the prospectus provides that each WA NO.1745/08 5 question will carry 1.5 marks, it is pointed out that there is no basis for the contention. 14. Going by para 9.1 of the prospectus, the respondents are well founded in submitting that the allotment of 1.5 marks for every correct answers in Mathematics and Statistics is perfectly in order. It has been explained that para 6 of Ext.P2 was not in tune with para 9.1 of the prospectus and that can only be a mistake. Learned counsel for the petitioners then pointed out that in para 9.4 it is stipulated that for each correct response, the candidates will be awarded 1 mark in both the papers and para 6 of Ext.P2 tallies with the said paragraph. It is true that para 9.4 provides for awarding of 1 mark in both the papers for each correct response. The same is the general provision, obviously. The exception provided in para 9.1 as regards Mathematics and Statistics is a special provision, since therein the number of questions are only 80, whereas in the other subjects the same will be 120. If one mark each is allotted for 120 questions, the total will be 120 marks and if 1.5 is taken for 80 questions, then also the total will be 120 marks. The idea behind reducing the number of questions for Mathematics and Statistics is that the candidates will not get sufficient time to answer the questions and when that is the object of the said provision, I am of the view that it cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. The particular stipulation in para 9.1 is a special provision as far as the two subjects are concerned and in that view of the matter, they are saved from the vice of arbitrariness. There is no challenge against the said para of the prospectus also.” 4. All examinations are conducted by human agencies. Of course, there will be some mistakes. The authorities concerned have inherent power to correct those mistakes. Certainly, it may cause some inconvenience to the candidates concerned. But, they are not grounds for judicially reviewing the conduct of the tests, or the publication of its WA NO.1745/08 6 results. We notice that all the candidates who have taken the examination, have been treated equally. So, there is no question of any discrimination shown to the appellant, under law. In view of the above facts, we find no reason to take a different view, than the one taken by the learned Single Judge, which we have already quoted above. We also notice that identical contentions were raised in W.A.No.769/08, but a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the Writ Appeal, though by a non-speaking order. In view of the above position, we find no merit in the Writ Appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. tgs K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.1745 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 30th January, 2010.