ABHIJIT SEN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Appeals Nos. 4092-4115/83 (Kanpur University and Ors. v. Samir Gupta and Ors.) and Civil Appeal Nos. 4068-4091/83 (State of U. P. and Ors. v. Samir Gupta and Ors.) were disposed of by this court by its judgment dated Sept. 27, 1983. The instant appeals by four failed students though connected with the aforesaid appeals and arising out of a common judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 24-2-1982 could not, for some reasons, be disposed of along with the aforesaid appeals and have been assigned to this Bench. The defects, that emerged on record in implementing and carrying out the 'Multiple Choice Objective Type Test' while holding a 'Combined Pre-Medical Test' which was done pursuant to the orders issued by the State Government in that behalf under S. 28 of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 by the Kanpur University in 1982 for giving admission to the 7-Medical Colleges in the State, of Uttar Pradesh for the 1933 session, have been pointed out, elaborately discussed and commented upon by this Court in its judgment dated September 27, 1983 and therefore it is unnecessary for us to dilate on those aspects of the matter again while disposing of the instant appeals. Suffice it to say that this Court has expressed therein a clear and categorical view that if the 'Key-answer' (i. e. the answer which the paper-setter has supplied to the University as the correct answer and which has been fed into the Computer) is shown to be demonstrably wrong, that is to say, such as no reasonable body of men well versed in the particular subject would regard it as correct and if the answer given by a student is correct if regard be had to acknowledged text-books or books which the student was expected to read and consult before appearing for the test it would be unfair to penalise the student for not giving an answer which accords with the 'Key-answer' that is to say with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong. The contentions raised in the instant appeals will have to be considered within these parameters indicated in the judgment.

(2.) At the outset it may be stated that Civil Appeal No. 4116/83 (filed by Appellant Abhijit Sen) and Civil Appeal No. 4118/83 (filed by Appellant Satyandra Vikram Singh) were not pressed before us and have to be dismissed. Ku. Shivani Aggarwal and Kumari Sunita Khare (the appellants in Civil Appeals Nos. 4117 and 4119 of 1983) have challenged the University's decision (which decision has been upheld by the Allahabad High Court) of refusing them admission to the M.B.B.S. course in any of the seven Medical Colleges. Learned Counsel appearing for them contended that the 'Key-answer' supplied by the Paper setter to question No. 31 in Zoology Paper (being Alternative No. 2) was wrong or incorrect and the answer given by both the appellants (by ticking Alternative No. 4) was the correct answer according to recognized text-books and therefore each one of these appellants was entitled to an addition of 4 marks (three marks for giving correct answer plus 1 mark which had been wrongly deducted by treating their answers as wrong) and if such addition of 4 marks was made each one was entitled to get admission. In the case of Kumari Sunita Khare (appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4119/93) her counsel raised a further similar contention with regard to Question No. 100 in Zoology-paper, as according to him the 'Key-answer' supplied by the paper-setter (being Alternative No. 3) was clearly wrong or incorrect while the answer given by that appellant (by ticking Alternative No. 4) was the correct answer according to recognized text-books and therefore so far as she was concerned even if her contention with regard to Question No. 31 was not accepted she was entitled to addition of four marks (3 for giving correct answer plus 1 mark which was wrongly deducted by treating her answer as incorrect) in regard to Question No. 100 and even on this basis she would be entitled to get admission. Counsel for the respondents did not dispute before us that if the two appellants or either of them is found entitled to an addition of four marks as suggested on their behalf they will have to be given admission to MBBS course but counsel disputed the validity of the contention urged on behalf of the appellants that 'Key-answer' supplied by the paper-setter to either Question No. 31 or Question No. 100 in Zoology-paper was wrong or that the answers furnished by the appellants were correct. Counsel urged that since the court was embarking upon a course of finding out and determining the correct answer having regard to the recognised text-books or authoritative books on the subject it would be immaterial whether the 'Key-answer' supplied by the paper setter was found to be wrong, not being in conformity with the correct answer determined by the Court but the appellants would not be entitled to addition of four marks unless their answers were in conformity with the correct answers found by the court. In other words according to counsel for the respondents if a situation was reached where both the answers, namely, the one given by the appellants as well as the 'Key-answer' supplied by the paper-setter, were found to be wrong with reference to the correct answer as determined by the Court the appellants should not succeed. We think there is considerable force in this last submission made by the counsel for the respondents.

(3.) Question No. 31 in Zoology-paper together with the suggested answers reads thus: