IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19238 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- TONY SIMON, S/O. DR.SIMON SONY COTTAGE, BALARAMAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN SRI.A.MOHAMMED FAIZAL SRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD RESPONDENTS: -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS EDUCATION SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR TRIVANDRUM 695 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.19238 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a student who wrote the Common Entrance Test for admission to MBBS Course in Medical Colleges in Kerala for the year 2008. After the test, the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations published an answer key, as per which, according to the petitioner, the answers to question numbers 85 and 90 given by the petitioner were correct. However, later on, the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations changed the answer key for these two questions, as a result of which the petitioner lost valuable marks which would materially affect his rank in the rank list prepared. The petitioner therefore earlier approached this Court seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider his representations in this regard. Pursuant to direction from this Court, the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations has now passed Ext.P12 order rejecting the contentions of the petitioner on the ground that the answers were decided by an expert W.P.(c)No.19238/08 2 committee on account of complaint received from many students and their parents, complying with the procedure prescribed for the purpose in the prospectus itself. The petitioner would submit that in so far as the answers given by the petitioner are supported by authoritative text books published by the NCERT, the original answer key in respect of two questions referred to has to be retained and the decision to change the same, even if it is by an expert committee, is unsustainable. He also points out that in Ext.P12, there is no mention as to why his contentions in this regard are not correct. The petitioner therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “(1) To declare that the action of the Respondents in revising the answer key under Exhibit P- 6 in so far as the Paper II Biology is concerned as arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable and bad in law and hence declare the same as null and void. (2) To call for the records leading to the revision of the answer keys as under Exhibit P-6 examine its legality, propriety and quash the revised answer key list. (3) To declare that Exhibit P-6 in so far as it relates to the revision of answer keys in respect of the Biology paper is null and void. 4) To direct the respondents to evaluate the answer paper of the petitioner on the basis of the initial W.P.(c)No.19238/08 3 key published and determine the rank/position of the petitioner in the rank list accordingly. 5) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ direction or order, holding that Exhibit P12 suffers from an error apparent on the face of it and quash the same. 6) To direct the respondents to conduct the counselling process on the basis of the rank list drawn as per above i.e., without any change in the revision in the answer key.” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. The relevant portion of Ext.P12 reads thus: “As directed by the Hon'ble High Court in its Judgment read as 1 st paper above the 2 nd respondent has examined the Ext.P-10 representation of the petitioner in terms of the conditions stipulated in the prospectus for Admission to professional Degree Courses, 2008 duly approved by Govt. as per G.o.(Rt) No.51/2008/H.Edn. Dated 8/1/2008 which is reproduced below. 9.7 The Declaration of Results: 9.7.1 The Commissioner for Entrance Examinations will publish the “Answer Keys” of all the Objective type Papers of the Entrance Examinations in the web-site of the CEE (cee-kerala.org) and in leading dailies, after the completion of all the examinations. 9.7.2. If any candidate has complaint regarding the answer keys, the same should be submitted to the CEE in writing along with supporting W.P.(c)No.19238/08 4 documents within 7 days from the date of publication of the answer keys in the web site of the CEE. Complaints received after the stipulated date will not be considered under any circumstances. Complaints received as e-mails/Fax will not be considered on any account. 9.7.3 All complaints received will be referred to expert committees to be constituted by the CEE. The recommendations of the Committees will be final. Necessary modifications will be made in the published answer keys based on the recommendations of the expert committees. Individual replies will not be given to the candidates on the decision of the Committees. As per the above clauses the 2nd respondent's office has published the Answer Keys of Engineering/Medical Entrance examinations 2008 on 24/4/2008 in the official website and allowed prescribed time for registering complaints along with supporting documents till 4 p.m. on 2/5/2008. all the complaints received within the stipulated period were referred to the expert committees constituted as per clause 9.7.3 of the prospectus for verification of answer keys. The said committee constituted for the verification of answer keys of Biology paper considered and scrutinised the complaints and submitted their recommendations. Based on the recommendations of the expert committee only, necessary modifications have been made in the published answer keys of Biology and other papers by the 2nd respondent. The revised keys were published on 21/5/08. As per clause 9.7.3. of the prospectus approved by Govt. “The recommendations of the Committees will be final”. So the revised keys published on the basis of the recommendations of the Expert Committee will be final and the 2nd respondent W.P.(c)No.19238/08 5 has acted according to the provisions of the prospectus. Every year, after the Common Entrance Test results are published, such disputes crop up and it has been made subject matter of challenge in this Court every year. Anticipating such complaints, a specific provision has been included in the prospectus itself for dealing with such complaints. An expert committee has been appointed this year in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the prospectus for dealing with such complaints. That expert committee has gone into the complaints received in respect of those two questions also and that committee has come to the conclusion that the answers given in the original answer key were wrong. Neither the 2nd respondent nor this Court is an expert on the subject. The petitioner has no case that the members of the expert committee appointed by the 2nd respondent are not competent to decide the matter. That being so, I am not satisfied that there is justification for this Court to interfere in the same. W.P.(c)No.19238/08 6 In the above circumstances, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition in so far as the matter has been decided on the basis of the recommendation of the expert committee constituted for this specific purpose as provided in the prospectus itself which is binding on the petitioner. Even otherwise, if the rank list is directed to be tinkered with at this point of time, it would result in the entire admission process being stalled indefinitely. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.19238/08 7