IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14530 of 2009 1. PANKAJ KUMAR S/O SRI NARESH PRASAD VILL- PARMA , P.S- NARDIGANJ, DISTT-NAWADAH AT PRRESENT HATHUA HOSTEL, ROOM NO.32 RANIGHAT MAHENDRU,P.S- SULTANGANJ, DISTT- PATNA Versus 1. THE VICE - CHANCELLOR . PATNA UNIVERSITY, ASHOK RAJ PATH, PATNA 2. THE REGISTRAR, PATNA UNIVERSITY, ASHOK RAJ PATH, PATNA 3. THE EXAMINATION CONTROLLER PATNA UNIVERSITY, ASHOK RAJ PATH, PATNA 4. ENQUIRY COMMITTEE THROUGH ITS CONVENER,BEET, 2009 PATNA UNIVERSITY, ASHOK RAJ PATH, PATNA ----------- 2. 17.11.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the University. The respondent University conducted the B.Ed Entrance Test 2009 (BEET-20009). Allegations were received of alleged malpractices leading the Vice Chancellor to constitute a committee of the Head of the Department of Physics, the Principal, M.M.College, Patna and the Dean, Students Welfare of the Patna University to enquire into the complaints. A report was submitted of large scale irregularities and malpractices during the course of evaluation of the OMR answer sheets. Assistance of the Forensic Science Laboratory was also taken. Scrutiny of the OMR Answer Sheets lead to positive evidence transpiring of large scale irregularities in the scrutiny of answersheets. The entire examination has been cancelled. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the examination held on 19.7.2009, 6173 candidates had appeared at seven centers and 210 declared successful. Referring to the enquiry report it was submitted that the enquiry report was speculative inasmuch as it suggested that it was not humanly 2 possible for a candidate to correct more than 20 answers given 100 questions tobe answered in 120 minutes. The Head of the Department of Physics and the Dean, Students Welfare and the Superintendent of the Examination had never reported any unfairness. The report of the enquiry committee was not reasonable and prudent leading to a positive conclusion of malpractices justifying setting aside of the entire result. Counsel for the University urged that the report was reasoned and conclusion based upon meticulous enquiry including the forensic investigation. Since the conclusion was of large scale irregularities in 52 answersheets out of 210 this Court should not interfere in the matter. Conduct of examination and upholding sanctity of the process of the examination is the responsibility of those involved in academics. This Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the enquiry committee. The only question to be considered by the Court is whether the reasons discussed in the report of the enquiry committee were one which no reasonable and prudent person versed in the conduct of examination would arrive at. If the findings are perverse, devoid of logic and reason, a conclusion which no reasonable person would have arrived at, then only shall the Court step in. The fact that the issue relates to large scale irregularities is something that this Court cannot loose sight of. This Court has gone through the enquiry report appended at Annexure 3. The Answer Sheets were required to be in OMR (Optical Marker Reader) Format. These answer sheets are not scrutinized by 3 human eyes but are screened through the computer process. This work of scanning of answersheets was entrusted to the agency Press Z. The enquiry at Para 1(iv) notices that the agency Press Z refused to appear before the enquiry committee. It was then served with the questionnaire by the Controller of Examination and replies received in sealed envelope. The Agency has denied its involvement. The three member committee arrived at the conclusion on positive evidence of malpractice at the stage of evaluation by the agency Press Z. At this stage refusal of the agency to appear before the enquiry committee assumes vital significance. The Forensic Science Laboratory examined 121 OMR forms out of the total 221. In 52 of them more than 20 answers were altered. It shall not be the jurisdiction of this Court to sit as an appellate authority over the opinion of the academicians with regard to conduct of examination/capacity of the students to answer limited number of question in a limited period of time and their ability to correct more than certain number of answers in specified time. These are expert matters to be determined by the academic experts and not for the Court to sit as an expert over the expert. The reasoning is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. The facts noticed in Para 2(iii) during enquiry are again something over which this Court cannot sit in judgement. The enquiry committee arrived at the conclusion that some one from the Examination Section played the role of mediator between the agency Press Z and the beneficiary candidate. An FIR bearing Pirhabore PS Case No. 411 of 2009 has also been registered. 4 This Court finds no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)