MEERA RANI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court appeared in the Post Graduate Entrance Test (Homoeopathy) Examination 2013. When the result of the aforesaid entrance examination was declared on 28.11.2012, the petitioner was given second rank, having obtained 81 out of 120 marks. The petitioner obtained a copy of her OMR answer sheet under Right to Information Act and applied for re evaluation of her answers in respect of questions No. 16,38,88,106,107,108 and 111. Vide order dated 14.05.2013, the petitioner was informed that her representation had been duly considered and it was found that there was no difference in the merit already declared by the University and the admission granted to respondent No. 2 Dr. Nisha who was given the first rank to the entrance examination.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the respondent University submits that they have re checked the answers contained in the answer key and on re consideration of the matter by experts, it has been found that the answer contained in the answer key in respect of question No. 16,88,107,108 and 111 were wrong, whereas all options given in the answer key in respect of question No. 106 were wrong. The result was re computed on the basis of the correct answers, after excluding question No. 106 from consideration and after giving due credit to the petitioner as well as to respondent No.2 for the correct answers, it was found that both of them got 85 marks each out of total of 120 marks.

(3.) IT was found that neither the petitioner nor respondent No.2 had cleared all the four professional examinations of BHMS course together in the first attempt. Therefore, neither of them could be given preference in the admission. The petitioner had 2886 marks in the four professional examinations out of 5100, whereas respondent No. 2 had 2907 marks. Therefore, respondent No.2 on account of her having higher marks in BHMS examination was declared the holder of rank No. 1. It is true that there is no specific rule which provides for giving preference to the candidate having higher marks in BHMS when none of the candidates having equal marks has cleared all the four professional examinations together in the first attempt, but, considering that clause (ii) of clause 2.12.1 of the Bulletin of Information would apply only if the candidates have equal marks in BHMS degree, the criteria of age cannot be applied. In the absence of any criteria in this regard in the Bulletin of Information, the respondent University, in my view, was fully justified in granting first rank to respondent No. 2 on the ground that she had higher marks in BHMS. Since there is only one seat in the course, it is not possible to accommodate the petitioner in the aforesaid course.