Civil Writ Petition No. 4118 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 4118 of 2008 Date of decision: 21 April, 2008 Gagandeep Mittal and others … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Assistant Advocate General Haryana for the State. Dr. Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anurag Goel, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Mr. M.L.Sarin, Senior Advocate with Ms. Alka Sarin, Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 to 9. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Gagandeep Mittal and others have preferred CWP No. 4118 of 2008 praying that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued and the report of Inquiry Committee dated 11th March, 2008 (Annexure P-5) along with decision of the Government dated 13th March, 2008 (Annexure P-6), whereby Government of Haryana decided to cancel the Post Graduate Entrance Examination of Haryana Medical Colleges (hereinafter called ‘the entrance examination’) conducted on 24.02.2008 by Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak (hereinafter called ‘university’) be quashed. Petitioner No.1 Gagandeep Mittal had secured 8th position, petitioner No.2 Dheeraj Gupta 10th position, petitioner No.3 Harsh Malik 1st position, petitioner No.4 Vineeta Deshwal 11th position, petitioner No.5 Praveen Solanki 3rd position, petitioner No.6 Shailesh Khetarpal 4th position and petitioner No.7 Sharad Civil Writ Petition No. 4118 of 2008 2 Yadav secured 6 position respectively in the entrance examination held in 2008 for MD/ MS/ PG Diploma and MDS in the open category. Similar prayer has been made in CWP No. 4239 of 2008 preferred by Preeti Chaudhary, who had also been successful in the entrance examination. CWP No. 4463 of 2008 has been preferred by Dr.Pale Ram, Dr. Rajesh Kumar and Dr.Ranju Soni, who were placed in the rank 1, 2 and 3 respectively in the quota reserved for HCMS (in-service doctors) category, with a similar prayer. CWP No. 5142 of 2008 has been preferred by Kanwar Singh, who secured rank 2 in the entrance examination, as he is also aggrieved by the decision of the Government (Annexure P-6) in canceling the entrance examination. CWP No. 5319 of 2008 has been preferred by Dr.Amit Narang, Dr.Anjuli Oberoi, Dr.Amit Soni, Dr.Virender Bansal and Dr.Ekta Mann. They had secured rank 13, 7, 9, 6 and 8 respectively in the category reserved for HCMS (in-service doctors) seeking the same relief. CWP No.5955 of 2008 has been preferred by Dr.Varun Arya, Dr. Vaibhav Ahuja who were placed at rank 12 and 15 respectively, in the open category, praying for quashing the decision of the Government to cancel the entrance examination. Since a similar relief has been sought in all the above said six writ petitions, they will be disposed off by instant common judgment. For facility of reference, we intend to advert to the facts given in CWP No. 4118 of 2008. On 12th November, 2007, Government of Haryana declared Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak (hereinafter called ‘the university’) as competent authority to conduct the entrance examination and declaration of result for admission in MD/ MS/ PG Diploma and MDS courses in Government Medical and Dental Colleges in the State of Civil Writ Petition No. 4118 of 2008 3 Haryana for the year 2008. For the present controversy, Dental Colleges already stand excluded. From the prospectus (Annexure P-1), it is evident that for open merit (general category), 28 seats were allocated and for HCMS (in-service doctors) reserved quota, 18 seats were allocated for MD/ MS courses. For Diploma courses, there were 9 seats for open merit and for HCMS reserved quota, there were 6 seats. The entrance examination was conducted by the university on 24th February, 2008 and the result of the entrance examination was also declared on the same day, i.e. on 24th February, 2008. The entrance examination was of 90 marks carrying multiple choice questions. In total, 180 multiple choice questions were to be answered. Each question carried half mark. The prospectus prescribed weightage to graduates of recognized Medical/ Dental Colleges of Haryana, of 10 marks and weightage of 5 marks for the candidates, who have passed their qualifying examination for MBBS/ BDS courses, i.e. 10+2 from any institution situated in Haryana but have passed their MBBS/ BDS from recognized Medical College outside Haryana State. A note was further given that weightage will be given only to those candidates, who qualified the entrance examination by securing atleast 50 % marks. It has been disclosed to us by counsel for the university that total 806 candidates had undertaken the entrance examination and 416 qualified having secured 50% marks. During the course of arguments, from facts gathered it emerged that after the declaration of the result, there was a lot of hue and cry raised doubting the sanctity of the entrance examination and the allegations of leakage, sale of papers etc. were leveled. These allegations were found baseless by the Controller of examination, Assistant Registrar (Confidential) in Annexure P-4, which was in respect of two news reports carried by two daily vernacular papers, Rohtak Bhaskar and Jagran City, which are city supplements of Dainik Bhaskar and Dainik Jagran. It seems, there was an agitation and the work of the university and medical colleges Civil Writ Petition No. 4118 of 2008 4 came to stand still. The matter drew attention of the State Assembly also and some representations were also given by some candidates alleging irregularities in the entrance examination, which necessitated the Vice Chancellor to constitute an inquiry committee on 29.02.2008. According to Mr.Ashok Aggarwal, counsel appearing for the petitioners, the impugned order (Annexure P-6) canceling the entrance examination was a panic order as a panic reaction of the Government and therefore, there was no application of mind. Whereas, Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate who appeared for the unsuccessful candidates (respondent Nos. 5 to 9), who got themselves impleaded as respondents by preferring an application, stated there was unrest and dissatisfaction for the first time in the medical fraternity as the results thrown by the entrance examination were startling. The unsuccessful candidates (respondent Nos. 5 to 9) have relied upon Annexure R-5/1 to base their grievances. Strange it may look, but it has happened. The following chart of result of MD/ MS entrance examination conducted by the university and relied by private respondents as R5/1 for the year 2008 is reproduced below: “Result of MD/MS entrance examination conducted by MDU in the year 2008 Open Merit Name Ran k Marks secured in entrance exam Additional Weightage of marks Did he/she secure rank in AIPG/ AIIMS/ PGI Chd. No. of subjects did he/she failed during their MBBS (out of total 14) Harsh Malik 1 79 10 Yes 3 Kanwar Singh (Age 34 yrs.) 2 78.5 10 NO 8 Parveen Solanki (Took MBBS admission on NRI Quota) 3 78.5 10 NO 2 Shailesh Khetarpal 4 77 10 NO 0 Dheeraj Kumar 5 76.5 10 NO 10 Sharad Yadav 6 76 10 NO 4 Amit Jindal 7 80 5 NO 4 KMC Manipal Civil Writ Petition No. 4118 of 2008 5 Gagandeep Mittal 8 80 5 NO 0 JSS Medical College Maysore Karnataka Ashwani Kr. Goyal 9 80 5 NO 1 HIMS Dehradun Dheeraj Gupta 10 79.5 5 NO Record not available KMC Bangalore Vinita Deswal 11 79 5 NO 9 HIMS Dehradun Varun Arya 12 78 5 No 2 MAMC Delhi Jaivinder 13 72.5 10 Yes 0 Nikhil Vinayak 14 72 10 Yes 0 Vaibhav Ahuja 15 77 5 NO 3 GMCH Chd. Gaurav Sachdeva (Took MBBS admission on NRI Quota) 16 70.5 10 NO 6 HCMS Quota Name Rank Marks Pale Ram 1 78.5 Rajesh Kumar 2 77.5 Ranju Soni 3 70.5 Kirti Raj 4 61 Dinesh Kumar 5 61 Virender Bansal 6 58.5 Anjali Oberoi 7 58 Rank no.11 and 27 (without 10 marks weightage) have identical marks and their husband are in same (orthopedics) department of PGIMS Rohtak.” What has happened this year is unusual, therefore reliance has been also placed on the past years from 2005-07 to give comparatives. Chart for the year 2007, 2006 and 2005 which are part of Annexure R5/1 are reproduced as under separately: “Result of MD/MS entrance examination conducted by MDU in the year 2007 Open Merit Name Rank Marks secured in entrance exam Additional Weightage of marks Did he/she secure rank in AIPG/ AIIMS/ PGI Chd. No. of subjects did he/she failed during their MBBS (out of total 14) L.M. Khandelwal 1 70.5 10 Yes 0 Sonal Grover 2 68.5 10 Yes 0 Poonam Verma 3 68.5 10 Yes 0 Neerav Jain 4 68 10 Yes 0 Civil Writ Petition No. 4118 of 2008 6 Alka Yadav 5 67.5 10 Yes 0 Ashish Gupta 6 67 10 Yes 0 Gaurva Dhupar 7 67 10 No 0 Abhishek Yadav 8 66.5 10 Yes 0 Shobna 9 66 10 Yes 0 Sandeep Khasa 10 66 10 Yes 0 Vikram Kala 11 66 10 Yes 0 Sandeep Goyal 12 66 10 Yes 0 Amit Verma 13 65.5 10 Yes 0 Harish 14 65.5 10 Yes 0 Ashwani Yadav 15 65.5 10 Yes 0 Sharad Chauhan 16 65.5 10 No 0 HCMS Quota Name Rank Marks Dr. Jyostna 1 59.5 Dr. Vishwajeet 2 58.5 Dr. Hemant Mor 3 57.5 Dr. Archana 4 57 Dr. Narender Kataria 5 56.5 Result of MD/MS entrance examination conducted by MDU in the year 2006 Open merit Name Rank Marks secured in entrance exam Additional Weightage of marks Did he/she secure rank in AIPG/ AIIMS/ PGI Chd. No. of subjects did he/she failed during their MBBS (out of total 14) Nitin Yadav 1 72 10 YES 0 Gurmit Singh 2 10 YES 1 Sonal Singhal 3 10 YES 0 Sanjay Arora 4 10 YES 1 Kamlesh 5 10 YES 0 Rajiv Jain 6 10 YES 0 Nidhi Rajoria 7 10 YES 0 Tarun Satua 8 10 YES 0 Savita 9 10 YES 0 Dinesh Yadav 10 10 YES 0 Manoj Aggarw 11 10 NO 0 Himanshu 12 10 YES 0 Kamal Kumar 13 10 YES 0 Jagdeep 14 10 YES 0 HCMS Quota Name Rank Marks Dr. Satish 1 66 Result of MD/MS entrance examination conducted by MDU in the year 2005 Open merit Name Rank Marks secured in entrance exam Additional Weightage of marks Did he/she secure rank in AIPG/ AIIMS/ PGI Chd. No. of subjects did he/she failed during their MBBS (out of total 14) Neetu 1 76 10 YES 0 Poonam 2 75.50 10 YES 0 Anita Yadav 3 74 10 YES 0 Supertiksh Yadav 4 74 10 YES 0 Civil Writ Petition No. 4118 of 2008 7 Vandana Jain 5 73.50 10 YES 0 Adarsh Marwah 6 73.50 10 YES 1 Meenu Goyal 7 73.50 10 YES 0 Sarika Jain 8 73 10 YES 0 Gaurav Gupta 9 73 10 YES 0 Kunal 10 72 10 YES 0 Madhu Jindal 11 72 10 YES 0 Nidhi Gupta 12 72 10 YES 0 Shefali Sardana 13 71.50 10 YES 0 Vinit Kumar 14 71.50 10 YES 1 HCMS Quota Name Rank Marks Sanjay Goyal 1 65 Arvind Jindal 2 64 Maha Singh 3 63.50 Promil Jain 4 63 Mohit Lathar 5 63 Counsel for the petitioners by pointing out a stray incident in the above said charts have questioned the accuracy and veracity of these charts. By and large, inquiry committee in its order (Annexure P-5) and order of Vice Chancellor (Annexure R-1) with the reply of the State, has acknowledged the arguments which these charts intend to project. As sated above, Vice Chancellor had constituted an inquiry committee of four experts and the report of the inquiry committee has been annexed as Annexure P-5. Various allegations were leveled, including allegation that one Dr.Amit Sinha was one of many persons, who was facilitating use of unfair means in exchange of lakhs of rupees in PG Medical Examination therefore, CBI inquiry was sought. Even mobile numbers of successful candidates were provided, but nothing surfaced from mobile number call details of seven candidates from 21st February to 25th February, 2008. From the many allegations, the following allegations found some substance. Before the findings of the inquiry committee are given, the allegations, to which some weightage was given by the inquiry committee, are reproduced below: “(i) Most of the candidates who got high ranks in the entrance examination had very dismal academic record during Civil Writ Petition No. 4118 of 2008 8 their graduation (MBBS). They suspected in writing that the following candidates had poor record: Rank No.2 to 12, 15 and 16”.- (Page 107 of Paper Book) “(iii) Usually any student who gets good rank in one entrance examination gets selected in other examination too. None of the above mentioned students got selected in any other entrance examination”. - (Page 107 of Paper Book) “…….They further requested to compare the answer pattern of above candidates with the candidates who did not use unfair means (rank holders 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25) of open merit list”. - (Page 108 of Paper Book) “In this context, the Committee examined the answer sheets of ranks 1 to 16 of general category and of ranks 1 and 2 of HCMS category. Further it examined the answer sheets of rank 11 and 27. Findings of the committee are as follows:- In case of rank 2 and 3, they have identical marks (78.5), on checking the answer sheets, the same question were marked wrong except for one question and correct answers were of the same question except for one question: Rank 7, 8 and 9 – They have equal marks (80). On checking answer sheet of rank 7 and 9, it was found that correct answers are of the same questions and wrong answers are also of the same questions. In case of rank No.8, answers of same questions were right or wrong except one question as compared with rank 7 and 9. In case of Rank No.5 who have got 76.5 marks and rank No.6 who have got 76 marks, while comparing their answer sheets, it was found that same questions were marked wrong and right except two questions. Rank 13 & 14 – These candidates were stated to be genuine by the complainants. Rank No.13 secured 72.5 marks and rank No.14 secured 72 marks. On checking their answer sheets, it was found that out of 35 wrong Civil Writ Petition No. 4118 of 2008 9 answers of rank 13 and out of 16 wrong answers or rank 14; only 18 wrong answers were of the same questions. Rank 11 & 27: It was alleged that rank 11 and 27 were wives of two doctors who were helped. The committee found that rank No.11 secured 79 marks and rank No.27 secured 78.5 marks. On verification of answer sheets it was found that correct answers of both the candidates are the same questions and wrongly marked answers are also of the same questions despite the fact they were of different series A & D. It was alleged that first three ranks of HCMS candidates were helped. HCMS rank 1 secured 78.5 marks and rank 2 secured 77.5 marks. On checking the answer sheets it was found that their wrong answers are the same except the two questions. Correct answers are also the same questions except two questions of rank 2. Comparison of marks secured by first 14 candidates in last five years shows that in 2003 highest score was 66.5 and lowest was 63.13. In 2004 highest score was 77.5 and lowest score was 68.5. In 2005 highest rank was having 76 and lowest was of 71.5 marks. In 2006 highest score was 71.5 and lowest was 68.5. In 2007 highest score was 70.5 and lowest score was 65.5. However, in 2008 highest score was 80 and lowest was 72 (Annexure “A”)”. “Similarly, in case of HCMS candidates, comparison of marks secured by first 10 candidates was as follows: In 2004 highest score was 57 and lowest was 50.5. In 2005 highest score was 65 and lowest was 61.5. In 2006 it was 66.5 and 60; In 2007 it was 59.5 and 54.5 and in 2008 it was 78.5 and 57.5 respectively. In 2008 highest score is 80. The score of rank No.12 is 78. Further from rank 12 to rank 13 there was a sharp drop of 5.5 marks. In HCMS candidates also the marks secured by rank 2 was 77.5 and that of rank 3 was 70.5 and of rank 4 was 61.50”. Civil Writ Petition No. 4118 of 2008 10 “In 2008 out of top 16 ranks, 12 passed MBBS in more than one attempt varied from 2 to 10 attempts”. - (Page 109 of Paper Book) As sum and substance from the above, following few allegations have surfaced: (i) The academic record of toppers in this entrance examination, i.e. No. 1 to 16 in the general category and 1 to 7 in the HCMS quota has not been good. They have got many re-appears. (ii) In the recent performance compared with similar entrance examination conducted by various other institutions, these candidates have performed badly. (iii) There has been increase in securing of the aggregate marks this year, which ranges from 77.5 to 80 in the general category and such a high percentage is a rare phenomena as compared to last years. Therefore, according to Mr.M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate appearing for unsuccessful candidates, only inference which can be drawn is that there was a selective leakage of examination. He also referred to para 6 of written statement of private respondents, where averments of leakage of paper have been made, to urge that identical correct and wrong answers between these candidates, which is a rarity, makes sanctity of this entrance examination doubtful. The committee examined these allegations and gave the following findings: “In this context, the Committee examined the answer sheets of ranks 1 to 16 of general category and of ranks 1 and Civil Writ Petition No. 4118 of 2008 11 2 of HCMS category. Further it examined the answer sheets of rank 11 and 27. Findings of the committee are as follows:- In case of rank 2 and 3, they have identical marks (78.5), on checking the answer sheets, the same questions were marked wrong except for one question and correct answers were of the same questions except for one question; Rank 7,8,9 - They have equal marks (80). On checking answer sheet of rank 7 and 9, it was found that correct answers are of the same questions and wrong answers are also of the same questions. In case of rank No.8, answers of same questions were right or wrong except one question as compared with rank 7 and 9. In case of Rank No.5 who have got 76.5 marks and rank No.6 who have got 76 marks, while comparing their answer sheets, it was found that same questions were marked wrong and right except two questions. Rank 13 & 14 - These candidates were stated to be genuine by the complainants, Rank No.13 secured 72.5 marks and rank No.14 secured 72 marks. On checking their answer sheets, it was found that out of 35 wrong answers of rank 13 and out of 16 wrong answers of rank 14, only 18 wrong answers were of the same questions. Rank 11 & 27: It was alleged that rank 11 and 27 were wives of two doctors who were helped. The committee found that rank No.11 secured 79 marks and rank No.27 secured 78.5 marks. On verification of answer sheets it was found that correct answers of both the candidates are the same questions and wrongly marked answers are also of the same questions despite the fact they were of different series A & D. It was alleged that first three ranks of HCMS candidates were helped. HCMS rank 1 secured 78.5 marks and rank 2 secured 77.5 marks. On checking the answers sheets it was found that their wrong answers are the same except the two questions. Correct answers are also the same questions except two questions of rank 2. Comparison of marks secured by first 14 candidates in last five years shows that in 2003 highest score was 66.5 and lowest was 63.13. In 2004 highest score was 77.5 and lowest score was 68.5. In 2005 highest rank was having 76 and lowest was of 71.5 marks. In 2006 Civil Writ Petition No. 4118 of 2008 12 highest score was 71.5 and lowest was 68.5. In 2007 highest score was 70.5 and lowest score was 65.5. However, in 2008 highest score was 80 and lowest was 72 (Annexure “A”)”. “Similarly, in case of HCMS candidates, comparison of marks secured by first 10 candidates was as follows: In 2004 highest score was 57 and lowest was 50.5. In 2005 highest score was 65 and lowest was 61.5. In 2006 it was 66.5 and 60; In 2007 it was 59.5 and 54.5 and in 2008 it was 78.5 and 57.5 respectively. In 2008 highest score is 80. The score of rank No.12 is 78. Further from rank 12 to rank 13 there was a sharp drop of 5.5 marks. In HCMS candidates also the marks secured by rank 2 was 77.5 and that of rank 3 was 70.5 and of rank 4 was 61.50, sharp drop of 9 marks. In 2008 out of top 16 ranks, 12 passed MBBS in more than one attempt varied from 2 to 10 attempts. In 2008 out of top 16 ranks 7 candidates are from outside PGIMS, Rohtak.” - (Page 114 to 116 of Paper Book) After returning these findings, the inquiry committee which consists of four experts gave the following recommendations: “RECOMMENDATIONS In the light of observations made above and circumstantial evidences, it seems that issue in dispute requires further investigation by some competent agency so as to reach a definite conclusion.” - (Page 117 of Paper Book) After the recommendations given by the committee dated 11.03.2008, the Vice Chancellor passed the order (Annexure R-1), attached with the written statement of State. The following paras of order (Annexure R-1) are necessary to be reproduced here: “3. Importantly, the enquiry report has raised no doubts as to any irregularities having occurred in the conduct and Civil Writ Petition No. 4118 of 2008 13 administration of the Entrance Test. Nothing is reported to have taken place by way of leakages, copying, impersonation, disturbances in the centers of examination, or the like accusations and allegations made on any such ground(s) notwithstanding (refer to para 1, page 7-8 of the report). Nor have the aggrieved candidates been able to provide even an iota of evidence, direct or indirect, in respect of any of these points(issues). - (Page 127 of Paper Book) 7. The Committee has considered these “couplings” as important departures/deviations from the past pattern of such test results, and has made the same as the basis of expressing doubts on the credibility of the present test results, to recommend in the end as under:- “In the light of observation made above and circumstantial evidences, it seems that issue in dispute requires further investigation by some competent agency so as to reach a definite conclusion”. 8. It may be recognized that there could be arguments against arguments on either side of a point of view. Yet, when the present test results are seen in a comparative frame, as is reported by the enquiry committee, these do appear quite curious. As a matter of fact, this alone has been the single substantive issue of concern for the enquiry committee, to dwell upon. It makes anyone to scratch one's head, but only to find no answer as to what wrong has gone, how and where, to allow this outcome to have emerged. This looks yet more curious and abegging answers as, procedurally and otherwise, no deficiencies have been found in the conduct of the entrance test. Is there,