* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY + WRIT PETITION NOS.12484, 12551, 12704, 12715, 12716, 12847, 13607 AND 13742 OF 2005 % 15-07-2005 # C.M.R.VELU and others PETITIONERS VS. $ Convenor, EAMCET 2005 & other ..RESPONDENTS ! COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: MR.CHALLASIVASANKAR ^ Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Mr.K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, Standing Counsel for JNTU University. Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, Standing Counsel for NTR University for Health Sciences. < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: 1. AIR 1983 SC 1230 2. 1993 ALT SUPP.(1)287 (DB) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NOS.12484, 12551, 12704, 12715, 12716, 12847, 13607 AND 13742 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO : 12484 of 2005 Between: C.M.R.Velu S/o.Late C.M.M. Chetty R/o.B.1 Arjun Apartments Tarbund, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Convenor, EAMCET 2005 JNTU, Kukatpally Hyderabad. 2 The Registrar NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particulars one in the nature of writ of mandamus calling for the answer script of CM.Prasanna Srinivas bearing Hall Ticket No.3530360 of the EAMCET 2005 conducted by the respondent No.1 together with the key answers provided by the 1st respondent and declare that the key answers valuation conducted by respondent No.1 in respect of question No.80 of Zoology and question No.18 of Botany is illegal and consequentially direct the respondents to grant new rank and allot one seat in MBBS in a Government Collage in Osmania Region and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CHALLASIVASANKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Mr.K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, Standing Counsel for JNTU University. Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, Standing Counsel for NTR University for Health Sciences. WRIT PETITION NO : 12551 of 2005 Between: K.Suribabu, S/o.K.Subba Rao, 24-1/8, Alwal, Secunderabad-10. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Convenor, EAMCET-2005, JNTU, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 2 The Registrar, NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particulars one in the nature of writ of mandamus calling for the answer script of Deepak Koppaka bearing Hall Ticket No.3526274 of EAMCET 2005 conducted by the respondent No-1 together with the key answers provided by the 1st respondent and declare that the key answer valuation conducted by respondent No-1 in respect of Question No-80 of Zoology, and Question No.18 of Botany is illegal and consequentially direct the respondents to grant new rank and allot one seat in MBBS in a govt College in Osmania Region and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Mr.K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, Standing Counsel for JNTU University. Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, Standing Counsel for NTR University for Health Sciences. WRIT PETITION NO : 12704 of 2005 Between: Lomte Jal Kishan Rao s/o Late Nageshwar Rao R/o 3-4-541/542, Narayanguda, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Convenor EAMCET-2005 JNTU, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 2 The Registrar NRT University of Health Science, Vijayawada .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particulars one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus calling for the answer script of the petitioner bearing Hall Ticket No. 3528019 of the EAMCET 2005 conducted by the respondent NO.1 together with the key answers provided by the 1st respondent and declare that the key answers valuation conducted by respondent No.1 in respect of Question No-80 of Zoology, and Question NO. 18 of Botany is illegal and consequentially direct the respondents to grant new rank and allot one seat in MBBS in a Govt. College in Osmania Region and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Mr.K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, Standing Counsel for JNTU University. Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, Standing Counsel for NTR University for Health Sciences. WRIT PETITION NO : 12715 of 2005 Between: Dr. M. Visweswara Rao S/o. M. Sivaramakrishnaiah R/o. Plot No.33, Malla Reddy Nagar, Lothkunta, Alwal, Secunderabad-10. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Convenor, EAMCET-2005, JNTU, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 2 The Registrar, NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ Order or direction more particulars one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus calling for the answer script of M. Sriram bearing Hall Ticket No. 3508146 of the EAMCET 2005 conducted by the respondent No.1 together with the key answers provided by the 1st Respondent and declare that the key answers valuation conducted by respondent No.1 in respect of Question No. 80 of Zoology, and Question No 18 of Botany and question No. 153 of Chemistry is illegal and consequentially direct the respondents to grant new rank and allot one seat in MBBS in a Govt. Collage in Osmania Region and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. WRIT PETITION NO : 12716 of 2005 Between: V. Thrishi Sagna, D/o. Chandrasekhar, R/o. S-4, Kasu Apartments, Bowenpally, Secunderabad - 11. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Convenor, EAMCET-2005, JNTU, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 2 The Registrar, NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court be pleased to issue a writ Order or direction more particulars one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus calling for the answer script of the petitioner bearing Hall Ticket No. 3514166 of the EAMCET 2005 conducted by the respondent No.1 together with the key answers provided by the 1st Respondent and declare that the key answers valuation conducted by respondent No.1 in respect of Question No. 80 of Zoology, and Question No 18 of Botany is illegal and consequentially direct the respondents to grant new rank and allot one seat in MBBS in a Govt. Collage in Osmania Region and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Mr.K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, Standing Counsel for JNTU University. Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, Standing Counsel for NTR University for Health Sciences. WRIT PETITION NO : 12847 of 2005 Between: G. Umamaheswar Rao, S/o. G. Venkat Rao, 96, Sidharthnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Convenor, EAMCET-2005, JNTU, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 2 The Registrar, NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ Order or direction more particulars one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus calling for the answer script of G. Venkata Sreekanth bearing Hall Ticket No. 3514052 of the EAMCET 2005 conducted by the respondent No.1 together with the key answers provided by the 1st Respondent and declare that the key answers valuation conducted by respondent No.1 in respect of Question No. 80 of Zoology, and Question No 18 of Botany is illegal and consequentially direct the respondents to grant new rank and allot one seat in MBBS in a Govt. Collage in Osmania Region and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Mr.K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, Standing Counsel for JNTU University. Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, Standing Counsel for NTR University for Health Sciences. WRIT PETITION NO : 13607 of 2005 Between: Nagam Sekar Reddy, S/o. Nagam Venkat Reddy, R/o. 303, Sri Sai Homes, Adikmet road, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Convenor, EAMCET-2005, JNTU, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 2 The Registrar, NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ Order or direction more particulars one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus calling for the answer script of my daughter Nagam Manvi Reddy bearing Hall Ticket No. 3506387 of the EAMCET 2005 conducted by the respondent No.1 together with the key answers provided by the 1st Respondent and declare that the key answers valuation conducted by respondent No.1 in respect of Question No. 80 of Zoology, and Question No 18 of Botany is illegal and consequentially direct the respondents to grant new rank and allot one seat in MBBS in a Govt. Collage in Osmania Region and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Mr.K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, Standing Counsel for JNTU University. Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, Standing Counsel for NTR University for Health Sciences. WRIT PETITION NO : 13742 of 2005 Between: Akhila Ayyagari, D/o Krishna Mohan, R/o 70/3RT, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Convenor, EAMCET-2005, JNTU, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 2 The Registrar, N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ , Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus calling for the answer script of the petitioner bearing Hall Ticket No. 3524040 of the EAMCET 2005 conducted by the respondent No.1 together with the key answers provided by the 1st respondent and declare that the key answers declared by R-1 in respect of Question No. 44, 49 and 80 of Zoology, and Question No. 18 and 19 of Botany is illegal and consequentially direct the respondents to grant new rank and allot one seat in MBBS in a Medical Collage in Osmania Region and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Mr.K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, Standing Counsel for JNTU University. Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, Standing Counsel for NTR University for Health Sciences. The Court made the following : COMMON JUDGMENT: 1. All these writ petitions are inter-connected and they relate to EAMCET-2005, hence they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Entrance test for admission into engineering, Agricultural and Medical courses was held in the State of Andhra Pradesh on 29.4.2005. Initial key answers was issued on 12.5.2005 calling for objections from the students who attended the examination and from all other corners including experts and academicians to be submitted on or before 19.5.2005. The final key committee consisting of a set of subject experts met on 21.5.2005 and prepared the final key answers after good deal of deliberations on the subject basing on the standard material and also by considering objections. The final key answers recommended/ prepared by the final key committee has been approved by the high level EAMCET committee considering of Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Commissioner of Technical Education, Vice Chancellor, JNTU University, Director, Andhra Pradesh, Telugu Academy, Convenor of EAMCET and others. Finally the results were released on 23.5.2005. 3. In these writ petitions the petitioners assailed key answers relating to question Nos.18 and 20 of Botany paper, question Nos.44, 49 and 80 of Zoology paper and question Nos.153 of Chemistry paper. However, the writ petitioner in W.P.No.13742 of 2005 who has assailed key answer to question No.44 of Zoology paper has not pressed his contention and therefore he confined the writ petition to question Nos.18 and 20 of Botany paper and question Nos.49 and 80 of Zoology paper. For better understanding I may mention the name of the candidate in each of the writ petitions and the question numbers assailed therein: S.No.Name of theCandidate W.P.No. RANK QUESTION NO. ASSAILED SUBJECT 1. C.M.PRASANNA SRINIVAS 12484/051679 8018 ZOOLOGYBOTANY 2. M.SRIRAM 12715/05871 8018153 ZOOLOGYBOTANYCHEMISTRY 3. DEEPAK KOPPAKA 12551/05913 8018 ZOOLOGYBOTANY 4. LOMTE JAI KISHAN RAO 12704/051050 8018 ZOOLOGYBOTANY 5. V.THRISHI SAGNE 12716/052285 8018 ZOOLOGYBOTANY 6. G.VENKATA SRIKANTH 12847/05602 8018 ZOOLOGYBOTANY 7. NAGAM MANVI REDDY 13607/05783 8018 ZOOLOGYBOTANY 8. AKHITA AYYAGARI 13742/052846 18204944(NOT PRESSED)80 BOTANYBOTANYZOOLOGYZOOLOGY ZOOLOGY 4. It is the contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners have answered the questions correctly and all of them have studied intermediate standard text books and therefore the answers written by them cannot be brushed aside. To demonstrate that the key answers are not correct for the questions referred to above, the learned counsel refers the relevant pages in the books published by Telugu Academy, Hyderabad, 2003 edition. Detailed submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners will be referred to in the foregoing paras of the judgment. 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-JNTU University submits that the key answers were prepared by a set of experts, academicians after a good deal of deliberations and every answer found in the key should be assumed to be correct unless it is demonstrably shown to this court that the answers are not correct. It is not open to this court sitting in Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere in Academic wisdom of the examiners in finalizing the answers found in a key. He would also submit that in academic matters this court should not show difference to the views of experts and should not embark upon an enquiry into the correctness or wisdom of the academicians. His further submission is that none of the petitioners or any one has raised objection to the initial key answer to Question No.20 and therefore it is not open to the petitioners to canvass that key answers to Question No.20 of Botany paper is not correct. 6. Before I consider the correctness or otherwise of the contentions raised in respect of each of the questions, I deem it appropriate to advert to the legal position. 7. In KANPUR UNIVERSITY V. SAMIR GUPTA the Supreme Court had to consider whether certain answers found in the key prepared by the examiners for the combined pre-medical tests in Uttar Pradesh were correct or not. The Supreme Court held that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say it must be such as no reasonable body of men well versed in the particular subject would regard it as correct. In case of doubt, the key answers would have to be preferred. In CONVENOR, EAMCET-1992 v. A.SWAPNA a Division Bench of this Court, after examining various decisions, culled out the principles deducible there from as follows: “ 5. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, the Supreme Court held that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. In case of doubt, the key answer would have to be preferred. In Convenor, EAMCET-92 v. A.Swapna a Division bench of this Court, after examining various decisions, culled out the principles deducible therefrom as follows: 1) Inspite of there being bar of revaluation of the answer scripts, the examinees are entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and ask the Court to satisfy itself whether the key answers are correct and complete or wrong. 2) If the key answer is demonstrably wrong and the student’s answer is correct, the candidate should be given mark (which can be called as Category ‘A’. 3) If the student’s answer is complete, while the key answer is incomplete though not wrong, the student gets mark (referred as Category-‘B’). 4) That in case the question is vague and ambiguous admitting of more than one answer, if the answer given by the student is correct, the student should be given a mark even though the student’s answer is not one of the suggested answers in the key (Category ‘C’). 5) As conceded by the Convenor in his counter affidavit in the case of question yielding more than one correct answer, if the student gives any one of the answers suggested in the key, he will be entitled to the mark. (Category ‘D’). 6) If the student answer is incorrect or incomplete, while the key answer is complete, the student cannot get mark and it need not be proved that the key answer is wrong (Category ‘E’). 8. I may first consider the contention of the writ petitioners with regard to question Nos.18 and 20 of Botany paper. Question No.18 of Botany paper together with suggested answer reads thus: “ Assertion (A): All the endodermal cells of the root do not contain casparian thickenings on their radial and transverse walls. Reason ® : Passage cells are found in the root endodermis. i. Both (A) and ® are true. ® is the correct explanation of (A). ii. Both (A) and ® are true but ® is not the correct explanation of (A) iii. (A) is true but ® is false. iv. (A) is false but ® is false.” The key answer to the above referred question is “option 4”. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the said key is incorrect and the correct answer is “option 1”. In support of his contention he placed reliance on page 220 of Intermediate First year Botany book (2003 edition) published by Telugu Academy, Hyderabad. Emphasis has been laid by him on passage relating to endodermis which reads as follows: “ Endodermis: The innermost layer of cortex is called ‘endodermis’. It is well developed and clearly demarcated as a single layer of barrel shaped cells arranged compactly without leaving any intercellular spaces. The radial and transverse walls are wrapped by a lingo-subersed band called ‘casparian band’. Certain endodermal cells positioned opposite to the protoxylem cells are thin walled and without casparian bands. These are known as ‘passage cells’ which help in the entry of water from the cortex into the stele.” It is explicit from the above passage that what is emphasized is certain endodermal cells. The assertion in question is all endodermal cells in the root do not contain casparian thickenings on their radial and transverse walls. Therefore, the assertion is false. Indeed the final key committee considered the objections raised by certain candidates with regard to the initial key. The final key committee considered this objection and over ruled the same with the following explanation. “ Option 4 only correct based upon explanation given below. The assertion given is – “All endodermal cells of root do not contain caspavan thickenings…..” The endodermal tissue of the roots contains both types of cells though with casparian strips and those without casparian strips. As such assertion is wrong and reader is reason is right i.e., option 4 is correct. If the assertion had been like “some of the endodermal cells do not contain casparian strips, then too option No.1 would have been correct. But the assertion in the question No.18 never gave some scope to think/speculate, because it is given as ‘all endodermal cells’. Hence, the option (1) is not correct answer.” The explanation given by the key committee is explicit that objectors misunderstood “All the endodermal” cells as “Certain endoermal cells”. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that option No.1 is correct answer for question No.18 of Botany paper has no merit. 9. Question No.20 of Botany paper together with suggested answer reads as under: “ Which pairs of the following plants represent the condition of modification of stipules into spines. i. Euphorbia & Zizyphus ii. Citrus & Euphorbia iii. Ziziphus & Beugainvillea iv. Beugainvillea and citrus. The key answer is option No.1. It is the contention of the petitioners that the said key is incorrect and the correct option is No.3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the question itself is ambiguous and not correctly set. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners refers to page 50 of Intermediate First year Botany published by Telugu Academy, Hyderabad (2003 edition) wherein leaf modifications are dealt under the heading “Leaf modifications”. It is explained as to the meaning of spines. It is profitable to refer the meaning of spines as explained by the authors of the book referred to above and it is thus: “ Spines: In some plants leaves are modified into sharp, pointed spines. They help in reducing the rate of transpiration in xerophytic plants and also protect the plants from herbivorous animals.” 10. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for 1st respondent-University submits that Euphorbia and Ziziphus is the right pair which contains stipules as spines. Page 50 of Telugu Academy Botany book gives only one of the two plants namely Ziziphus where stipules are modified into spines. The remaining part of the question that refers to Euphorbia is mentioned along with Ziziphus at page No.252. Stipule is a part of leaf. Thorn differs from spines in structural function. In Boungainvillea thorns are found. Thorn is a modification of accelerate bud of stem and not a part of leaf/stipule. In page 252 of Chapter xerophytes under the heading Leaves it is stated that in some plants such as euphorbia and ziziphus, jujuba stipules become modified into spines. By referring to page 252 of the book (3 leaves-v) referred to above, I am in no doubt to conclude the key answer giving as option No.1 is inconformity with morophological features of leaves and therefore the contention of the petitioners that option No.3 is the correct answer has no merit. 11. Question No.49 of zoology paper together with suggested answers reads as under: “ Contractile tissues have the following features: i. Mesodermal in origin. ii. They contain stretch receptors iii. Rhythmic contractions are seen in them iv. They do not fatigue during the life of the animal. Which of the above are characteristics of sphincters i. All four. ii. Only (i) , (ii), (iii) iii. Only (i), (ii), (iv) iv. Only (i), (iii), (iv). Key answer is Option No.2. According to the petitioners option No.1 is the correct answer. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by referring to page Nos.72, 74 and 75 of the Zoology text book of Telugu Academy (2003 edition) submits that option No.1 is the correct answer and since the writ petitioner in W.P.No.13742 of 2005 has marked option No.1, he is entitled to get one mark. 12. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent- University submits that the question deals with the choosing of characteristic features of contractile elements such as smooth muscles. Smooth muscles are associated with digestive system and urinary bladder where sphincters play a regulatory role. It is his further contention that experts committee considered the suggestions and offered explanation for retention of option No.2 as the correct answer. The question deals with the choosing of the characteristic features of contractile tissues such as smooth muscles, structural muscles and