STATE OF ORISSA Vs. PRAJNAPARAMITA SAMANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An entrance examination was held for the medical courses for the academic year 1991-92. The students who failed in the examination approached the High court by various writ petitions. The contention of the students was that there were 38 questions which were (a) either outside syllabus, or (b) were such for which key answers given were wrong while the correct answers were available in the alternative answers given against the said questions, or (c) for which the alternative answers given were all wrong, or (d) such for which more than one alternative answers provided were correct. Normally, the courts do not examine such grievances and sit in appeal over the decision of the examining bodies. However, the High court took pains and examined the said grievances of the students and ultimately came to the conclusion that according to it, there were nine questions for which the answers could be more than one. On this conclusion, the High court directed the MBBS/bds Selection Board to re- evaluate the answer books of those of the examinees who had secured a minimum of 105 marks, and after re-evaluation of the nine questions concerned, give admission to those of the examinees who would secure a minimum of 1 14 marks. The High court further made it clear that the benefit of its order would be available only to those who had approached the High court till 27/3/1992 which was the date of its decision. Against the said decision, the present writ petitions and appeals have been filed.

(2.) In these appeals, the State has made a grievance that the High court ought not to have given the direction in question and in giving the said direction, the High court has exceeded its jurisdiction. By our order of 19-2-1993, we had directed that while there will be no order of stay of the direction given by the High court except to the extent that out of the candidates who had become eligible for admission pursuant to the High court's order, only those who qualified for admission on the basis of re-evaluation of seven of the nine questions, the key answers respecting which were held to be incorrect, shall be entitled to be so admitted and that the admission shall be provided in the then current year, viz. , 1992-93 without reducing the quota of the said year. Pursuant to this order, 53 examinees were admitted and they have been pursuing their studies since then.

(3.) Subsequently, by our order dated 30/9/1993, we directed the experts of the Delhi University in the subjects of Chemistry, Botany and Zoology to givetheir opinion with regard to six of the seven key answers and the stand of the students in respect of the said answers which found favour with the High court. The experts were to indicate whether (a) the key answers or the answers which according to the students were correct, were most appropriately the correct answers, and (b) whether both or either were wholly incorrect and if so which of them. We have since received the report of the experts. From the said report, it is found that four of the answers which according to the students were correct have been certified as such by the experts whereas two of the key answers given by the Board were found to be correct. We had undertaken this exercise only to satisfy ourselves as to whether there was truth in the grievance of the students or in the stand taken by the Board that the key answers provided by them were the most correct answers. We are satisfied on the basis of the opinion of the experts that there was much to be said in favour of the stand of the students. It may be mentioned here that we had sent only six answers for examination to the experts out of the seven as indicated in the earlier order, because we had found that the answer to the seventh question canvassed by the students was so obviously correct that it needed no examination at the hands of the experts. The report of the experts also validates the order of the High court which had directed re- evaluation of the answer books of the examinees on the basis of the answers suggested by it to the nine questions. In the circumstances, taking a broad view of the entire matter, we are satisfied that it cannot be said that the impugned judgment of the High court suffered from any infirmity. We, therefore, find no merit in the grievance of the State and dismiss the State's appeals being CA Nos. 732 and 745-54 of 1993.