IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2008 / 18TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20644 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MERIN VARGHESE, AGED 17 YEARS, VADAKKADOM-KRIPA KUNNAKARA, PULAMON P.O., KOTTARAKKARA REPRESENTED BY HER NEXT FRIEND AND FATHER JACOB VARGHESE VADAKKADOM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEX N.MATHEW (KOLLAM) SRI.H.RAMANAN SRI.JAMES JOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.20644 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner was a candidate for admission to Medical Degree Course in Kerala for the year 2008. The petitioner appeared for the common entrance test and was included in the rank list. After the examination, the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations published the answer key, as per which, the answers to question numbers 101 and 106 were the same answers, which the petitioner had given. According to the petitioner, as per the authoritative text books also those answers were the correct answers. However, subsequently the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations changed the answer key, as a result of which, the petitioner lost precious marks and consequently the petitioner came lower down in the rank list. Against the change of answer key, the petitioner filed a representation before the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations. By Ext.P7 judgment, I directed the Commissioner W.P.(c)No.20644/08 2 of Entrance Examinations to consider the same and pass orders thereon. By Ext.P8 order, the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations rejected the representation. The same is under challenge before me. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. The relevant portion of Ext.P8 order reads thus: “Immediately on receipt of the above judgment 2 nd respondent has informed the petitioner through phonogram on 17-6-2008 to attend for personal hearing on 19.6.2008. Accordingly the petitioner and her father were present for personal hearing before the 2 nd respondent on 19-6-2008 at 11 am. The second respondent has gone through the Ext.P1 representation of the petitioner and heard the assertions and grievances of the petitioner and examined the same 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 any complaint regarding the answer keys, the same should be submitted to the CEE in writing along with supporting documents within 7 days from th 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 W.P.(c)No.20644/08 3 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 2 nd 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 the question and answer keys. The said committee constituted for the verification of answer keys of Biology paper considered and scrutinized the complaints and submitted their recommendations. Based on the recommendations of the expert committee, necessary modifications have been made in the published answer keys of Biology and other papers by the 2 nd 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 2 nd respondent has acted according to the provisions of the prospectus. In the light of the above, the undersigned detailed the implications of relevant provisions of the prospectus, subsequent action taken by this office as per the clauses of the prospectus. The 2 nd respondent has proceeded with the publication of rank lists of Entrance Examinations and published category lists of KEAM, 2008 after finalizing the keys of Engineering/ Medical papers. Preliminary arrangements are also being made for allotment process which is proposed to commence in the first week of July, 2008. W.P.(c)No.20644/08 4 In the above circumstances Ext.P-1 representation submitted by the petitioner deserves no consideration in the light of the respective clauses of the prospectus of KEAM, 2008 and is hereby rejected. The directions contained in the judgment dated 12/6/08 of the Hon'ble High Court is complied with.” 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 to the particular questions 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.20644/08 5 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.20644/08 6