Case: Kanpur University and Others Vs. Samir Gupta and Others

The respondents in these Appeals applied for admission to the Medical Colleges in the St ate of Uttar Pradesh. There are 7 Medical Colleges in the State of U.P., to which admission is granted on the basis of the result of a Combined Pre-Medical Test which is held in pursuance of the orders passed by the State Government under section 8 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. The Government nominates one of the Universities in the State for holding the Test every year. In the year 1982, the Kanpur University, the appellant herein, was entrusted with the task of holding the Test. By any standard, it is a stupendous task because 20, 000 applications are received every year for admission to a total number of 779 seats in the 7 Medical Colleges, out of which 50% are reserved seats and the remaining 50% a re open. Physics, Chemistry, Zoology and Botany are the four subjects which are prescribed for the Test. One paper is set for each subject and the pattern of the examination is what is called the Multiple choice of objective-type test. For person s belonging to yester generations, this is a newfangled concept. Hundred questions are set in each paper and four alternative answers are indicated against each question. The candidates are required to tick the correct answer from out of those four. If he ticks the correct answer, he secures 3 marks and if a candidate ticks an incorrect answer, he loses I mark. Each paper is of a duration of 3 hours.So far so good. The snag lies in determining which out of the four suggested answers is the correct answer. That duty is naturally assigned to the paper-setter, who is required to supply to the University the correct answer to each question, called the key answer. The difficulty involved in evaluating a very large number of answer-books is solved by the State Government, quite successfully, by computerising the result. The key answers are fed into a computer and the marking computerised.The difficulty which arose in these cases is not due to the failure of the computer, which is quite encouraging. The habit of man is to blame the machine. The difficulty arose because the key answers furnished by the paper-setters turned out to be wrong. The students got to know the key answers out of the generosity of the University. If wanted, rightly, to be frank and fair. Therefore, it published the key answers along with the result of the test. Respondents, whose names did not figure in the list of successful candidates, filed writ petitions in the High Court of Allahabad, contending that the answers ticked by them were correct and the key answers wrong. The High Court has accepted their contention and that is how the Kanpur University has come to file these appeals. The re cannot be a more telling instance of Shishyat Ichhet Parajam (Wish for defeat from your pupil). But the Gurus contend that the Shishyas are wrong and do not deserve to win.

Reasoning: The University produced the opinion of Shri H. S. Vishnoi of the Department of Zoology, University of Delhi. We agree with the High Court that though Shri Vishnoi is a knowledgeable person in his speciality, he was evidently under some confusion while giving his opinion. Profundity sometimes creates confusion. In the very opening sentence of his opinion, Shri Vishnoi says:"The point is ab out free ammonia".That is not the point. The question which the students were asked to answer was not "about free ammonia" but which of the four alternatives was not present in free form when life originated. Shri Vishnoi has also not given specific citations from the two books to which he has referred in support of his opinion. We therefore agree with the conclusion of the High Court that the answer to question No. 23 in the Zoology paper is oxygen as contended for by the respondents and not Ammonia as stated in the key answerIf the State Government wants to avoid a recurrence of such lapses, it should compile under its own auspices a text-book which should be prescribed for students desirous of appearing for the combined Pre-Medical Test. Education has more th an its fair share of politics, which is the bane of our Universities. Numerous problems are bound to arise in the compilation of such a text-book for, various applicants will come forward for doing the job and forces and counter- forces will wage a battle on the question as to who should be commissioned to do the work. If the State can succeed in overcoming those difficulties, the argument will not be open to the students that the answer contained in the text-book which is prescribed for the test is not the correct answer. Secondly, a system should be devised by the State Government for moderating the key answers furnished by the paper setters. Thirdly, if English questions have to be translated into Hindi, it is not enough to appoint an expert in the Hindi language as a translator. The translator must know the meaning of the scientific terminology and the art of translation. Fourthly, in a system of Multiple Choice Objective-type test, care must be taken to see that questions having an ambiguous import are not set in the papers. That kind of system of examination involves merely the tick-marking of the correct answer. It leaves no scope for reasoning or argument. The answer is yes or no. That is w hy the questions have to be clear and unequivocal. Lastly, if the attention of the University is drawn to any defect in a key answer or any ambiguity in a question set in the examination, prompt and timely decision must be taken by the University to declare that the suspect question will be excluded from the paper and no marks assigned to it.There was some argument before us as to the nature of the relief which can be granted to the respondents. It was contended by Smt. Dixit, who appears on behalf of the State of U.P., that six of the respondents have been already admitted to the B.D.S. Course and, therefore, they should not now be admitted to the M.B.B.S. course. We cannot accept this submission since, those students sought admission to the Dental course only because they were not admitted to the M.B.B.S. course. And they were denied admission to the M.B.B.S. course wronglyTwenty-seven students in all were concerned with these proceedings, out of whom 8 were admitted to the B.D.S. course, 3 were admitted to the M.B.B.S. course last year itself in place of the students who dropped out and 5 have succeeded in getting admission this year. Omitting 8 of the respondents who have been already admitted to the M.B.B.S. course, the remaining 19 shall have to be given admission as directed by the High Court. If the key answer was not wrong as it has turned out to be, they would have succeeded in getting admission. In view of the findings of the H igh Court, the question naturally arose as to how the marks were to be allotted to the respondents for the three questions answered by them and which were wrongly assessed by the University. The High Court has held that the respondents would be entitled to be given 3 marks for each of the questions correctly ticked by them, and in addition they would be entitled to 1 mark for those very questions, since 1 mark was deducted from their total for each of the questions wrongly answered by them. Putting it briefly, such of the respondents as are found to have attempted the three questions or any of them would be entitled to an addition of 4 marks per question. If the answer-books are reassessed in accordance with this formula, the respondents would be entitled to be admitted to the M.B.B.S. course, about which there is no dispute. Accordingly, we confirm the directions given by the High Court in regard to the reassessment of the particular questions and the admission of the respondents to the M.B.B.S. course.There is one student, Miss Reeta Gupta, whose grievance is that if she is given additional marks as directed by the High Court, her place will go higher up in the merit list, as a consequence whereof she wou ld be eligible for admission to the Medical College situated in her place of residence. Smt. Dixit says that Miss Gupta should apply to the Government in this behalf and the Government could consider her application. We do not think that there is any justification for us to interfere with the order passed by the High Court on this score alsoWe understand that some petitions are pending in the High Court on these very points. Those petitions will be disposed of by the High Court in the light of this judgment, provided that the petitioners therein make out a case for interference as the students in these appeals have done. We however, direct that no fresh petitions should be entertained by the High Court and, of course, none will be entertained by us hereafter on the questions involved in these appeals arising out of the test which was held in 1982. The new academic session is due to commence within the next few days and these questions cannot b e allowed to be raised in a leisurely fashion so as to disorganise the scheme of fresh admissions