1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.10476/2009. : : Jhabar Singh Jat & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 5.10.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE Mr. S. K. Jindal with Ms. Nitu Bhansali for the petitioner. Mr. N. K. Joshi ] Mr. R. A. Katta for the respondents. Ms. Shruti Dixit, Dy.Govt.Counsel for the State. Reportable The petitioners have filed this writ petition with the prayer that the respondents be directed to invite objections from the candidates against the answer key of RPMT Examination, 2009. Further, it has been prayed that the respondents be directed to constitute an Expert Committee to consider objections of the petitioners and other candidates of RPMT Examination, 2009. It has also been prayed that the respondents be directed to publish fresh answer key as per the opinion of the Expert Committee and to prepare a fresh merit list in accordance to it. 2 2. The relevant facts relating to the present controversy are that the respondent No.4 had issued an advertisement inviting applications for appearance in the RPMT Examination, 2009, in furtherance of which the petitioners had applied and appeared in the said examination. The result of the RPMT Examination, 2009 was declared by respondent No.4 on 4.6.2009. It was followed by publication of the answer key in the newspaper. The petitioners had noticed that some wrong answers were given in the answer key and no objections were invited by the respondents against the answer key of RPMT Examination, 2009, as had been done by the respondent-University in respect of the examination of the year 2008. Therefore, the students moved an application, under Right to Information Act, before respondent No.2 and prayed for giving the copy of question papers of RPMT Examination, 2009. But the said request was turned down. Then the petitioners alongwith other candidates submitted a representation on 17.6.2009 to respondent No.2 with the request to supply the question papers of RPMT Examination, 2009. It was also requested that an Expert Committee in the matter may be constituted to rectify the mistake committed in the answer key and a fresh answer key may be issued 3 thereafter. The Assistant Registrar of the respondent- University had declined the request made by the petitioners in respect of the demand of question paper of RPMT Examination, 2009. The respondents neither constituted any Expert Committee nor issued the answer key, as requested by the petitioners. 3. On 16.7.2009, the first counseling for admission to the Medical College was started and ended on 18.7.2009. Then again the petitioners alongwith other candidates made a representation on 9.7.2009 reiterating the request for making available the question paper and to revise the answer key. Thereafter another representation was submitted on 15.7.2009, but no heed was paid. On 14.8.2009, the information with regard to second round of counseling of RPMT Examination, 2009 was published. It was mentioned that the second counseling shall be conducted from 27.8.2009 to 29.8.2009. When all the representations made by the petitioners were not responded to by the respondent- University then a notice for demand of justice was sent to them on 19.8.2009. But the respondents did not constitute an Expert Committee to redress the grievance of the petitioners in respect of RPMT Examination, 2009. 4 4. Notices in this petition were issued to the respondents by the Court on 26.8.2009. Further, it was ordered that the result of the counseling of RPMT Examination, 2009 shall be subject to the decision of the writ petition. Thereafter the respondents had filed reply to the writ petition admitting the averments made in the writ petition, to the extent that answer key of RPMT Examination, 2009 was published; objections were invited from the effected parties and the University had constituted an Expert Committee, in respect of RPMT Examination, 2008. Further, it was stated in the reply that when the students moved an application under Right to Information Act on 5.6.2009, the respondent-University did not give the required information in compliance of the provision of para No.13 of “Instructions for Examination” of Information Booklet RPMT, 2007, approved by Government of Rajasthan. Thereafter Mr. K. B. Agarwal filed an appeal against the said order passed by the Public Information Officer of the respondent-University. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 9.8.2007 dismissed the appeal. Further appeal (1071/2007) was preferred before the Chief Information Commissioner. The learned Commissioner allowed the appeal by order dated 3.12.2007. Subsequently, the respondent- 5 University filed a writ petition (2354/2008) titled as Rajasthan University of Health Science Vs. Professor K. B. Agarwal, before the High Court. The High Court had stayed the operation of the order of the Chief Information Commissioner. The respondent-University has also averred in the reply that it has taken steps on the objections raised by the effected parties and constituted a Committee of experts headed by Dr. D. P. Punia, Dean Faculty of Medicine and the said Committee had given its report on 7.9.209. It has also been stated by the respondent-University in the reply that they are willing to solve the problem and objections raised by the students at the earliest. According to them, the main grievance of the petitioners was that the respondent- University did not constitute an Expert Committee to resolve the objections raised by the petitioner. Further, it is stated that the demand of the petitioners have already been accepted by the respondent-University and after perusing the representation made by them, it is clear that petitioners themselves are not interested to solve the real problem. The aforesaid Expert Committee, according to the respondents, had minutely gone through the objections raised by the students and it had arrived at the conclusion that the 6 procedure followed for the preparation and publication of key is fulfilled. 5. After having considered the submissions made by the counsels for the parties, this Court had taken note of the facts in detail on 17.9.2009 and had passed the following order : “I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of controversy involved; the paucity of time because as per the schedule the admissions are to be finalised and classes of MBBS I Course are to be started by 30.9.09 and the procedure adopted by the same University in respect of similar objection/controversy which it had come last year also. In order to find out the truth in the matter; the persons responsible for the irregularity and also to see that the result of the examination in question are just and fair, I deem it proper to have the matter inquired into by a Special Committee of renowned persons of medical science faculty, constituted by this Court. For this purpose, I hereby order to constitute a Committee, headed by Dr. Onkar Saxena, Formar Principal, SMS Medical College, Jaipur along with 7 two other members; namely Dr. J.C. Sharma, Former Principal SMS College and Dr. V. K. Pandey, Former Head of the Department, Department of Orthopedics, SMS Medical College, Jaipur. In order to co-ordinate the said Committee, I direct Dr. N. S. Shekhawat, Superintendent, SMS Medical College, Jaipur to do the needful and provide all assistance to the Special Committee as and when required. The Committee shall give its report positively by 29.9.2009. The record of the examination of RPMT, 2009, as handed over by the convener of the said examinations, respondent No.4, would be sent by the office of this Court to the Head of the Committee and a copy of this order to every member as well as coordinator, forthwith.” 6. In furtherance of the aforesaid order, the Committee had submitted its report on 29.9.2009. The said report of the Committee is being taken on record and for the purpose of identification the same is marked as “X”. The Committee constituted by this Court, comprising of very senior and reputed persons of medical science faculty who had held high responsible posts in their times, had come to the following conclusion : 8 “Barring minor discrepancies, the committee did not find any significant irregularity in the conduct of RPMT 2009 examination. The examination has been conducted in just and reasonable fair manner.” In respect of preliminary objections of the petitioners that the procedure adopted in RPMT Examination, 2008 had not been followed by the respondent-University, in respect of RPMT Examination, 2009 was also answered by the Committee as under : “The procedure adopted in 2008 to invite objections from candidates to the published key in papers was wrong and has been rectified in 2009 examination.” 7. It has been further stated by the Committee that the grievance of petitioners apparently arose from the unusual procedure followed by the University in RPMT 2008 namely; inviting objections to the published answer key of the paper and then getting the moderated key prepared thereafter. However, it observed that this year the University got the moderated key prepared by independent subject experts of eminence before starting the evaluation work. 9 Therefore, the Committee was of the view that University actually has only followed the established procedure by not inviting objections to the published key. That conclusion of the Committee was on the basis of printed information booklet. 8. As regards awarding of bonus marks in case of the question where answers more than one happens to be correct, the Committee observed that if bonus marks were to be awarded for such question then a candidate answering with option 'A' i.e. wrong answer would also get credit. Further, it observed that candidate, who has not attempted the said question would also get same marks vis-a-vis a candidate, who has answered correctly by marking the correct answers. Consequently, the Committee opined that awarding of bonus marks in such questions will put meritorious students to some obvious disadvantage. Therefore, the Committee did not support awarding of bonus marks. 9. For the aforesaid reasons and the opinion/conclusions arrived at by the Committee constituted by this Court, I am of the considered opinion that the 10 petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for. In the end, the respondent-University is directed to be more caution and vigilant in the State level examination such as RPMT examination and no error should be allowed to be committed because on account of a slight oversight by a person concerned do create problems to many people and the candidates are also put in a situation of delima and uncertainty. Therefore, the persons concerned of the respondent-University have a heavy responsibility in conducting such examination and they need to be more careful in not letting such discrepancies in future. The Committee has also made certain suggestions, which this Court would like to put in the form of directions to the respondent-University, to be followed in RPMT examination to be held in future. The directions are thus : 1. If the question paper is not to be given to the candidate then it should be so mentioned explicitly in the information booklet. 2. Original manuscript of the question paper should also be provided to the subject experts who prepare the moderated key. 11 3. English as well as Hindi version of the question papers should be provided by the paper setter, only for which honorarium be suitably enhanced. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE )J. A.Arora/- Item No.S/2.