IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 22717 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHEJI DAS.S.S. S/O.SOMAN, 'SHEJI BHAVAN', ERAVUKADU, THIRUVAMBADY PO, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN SRI.T.T.SUDHEESH SMT.B.SHAMEERA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 3. THE DIRECTOR, L.B.S.CENTRE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLGY, NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM-695 033. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SC, LBS CENTRE FOR R3 GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 22717 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 28th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a candidate who appeared for the State Eligibility Test conducted by the Government of Kerala, this year and failed. She is challenging the examination itself on two grounds. First is that negative marks have been awarded for wrong answers, which is illegal, and the second is that out-of-syllabus questions have been included in the question paper. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. I am not inclined to countenance the contentions of the petitioner on the two grounds raised by the petitioner. As far as the first ground is concerned, there is no law which prevents the respondents from awarding negative marks for wrong answers. The contention of the petitioner is that even the University Grants Commission has dispensed with the practice of negative marks for National Eligibility Test. The fact that the UGC has dispensed with the system of granting negative marks is no ground to find that awarding of negative marks itself is illegal. That is a policy decision to be taken by the respondents taking into account so many factors. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the first ground. As far as the second contention is concerned, the petitioner has not produced any material w.p.c.22717/10 2 before me to show that out-of-syllabus questions have been included in the question paper. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not challenged the questions immediately after she wrote the examination. She waited till the results were published and only when she found that she did not pass, she has filed this writ petition raising this contention. In such circumstances, such contention cannot be entertained. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge