JIGISHA BHATT Vs. NORTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three young students who have failed at the examination in the subject of English Compulsory held in March/April 1993 have approached this Court for a direction on the respondent to add 9 marks in the result of all the students and in particular the petitioners who had appeared at the said examination.

(2.) The main attack of the petitioners against the outcome of their result in the subject of English Compulsory is that the questions were not correctly framed and the instruction given in the question paper as well as the blanks shown in the questions were such that the minds of the students would get confused while attempting them. Though it has been stated in the petition that all the students have passed in all the subjects except English at the hearing it was pointed out that the petitioner No. 1 had failed in English Compulsory and also in Special English. The case of the petitioners is that the expectation of the University from these students was very high and idealistic. It is stated that as the questions were not correctly framed the students were misled and confused and they had therefore failed in the subject of English. It is stated that in question No. 4 (A) there was no underlining done as mentioned therein. Moreover in question No. 4 (B) which related to using the correct form of the auxiliary verb given in the bracket to complete the sentences the instructions were misleading and that the questions were not correctly framed. In question No. 4 (C) which was for completing the sentences using correct form of the verb shown in the bracket the instruction was insufficient as there was no indication to use negative where necessary. As regards question No. 4 (D) also it is stated that the question is not clear and at one place instruction is given in the midst of the sentence instead of being given at the end. As regards question No. 2 as to How many times did Fischer meet Gandhi ? the contention is that the key answer that Fischer met Gandhi twice was not correct. The correctness of key-answers (2)(ii) 2 2 and 2(vii)is also challenged.

(3.) It was strongly contended by Mr. B. P. Tanna the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners that the students were pursuing the subject only at the level of First Year B. A. and the authorities ought to have known that they would be misled if blanks were shown at wrong places and proper instructions were not given in the question paper. He submitted that the form in which the question 4 (B) and 4(C) were framed was not correct and it would misled the petitioners. He also submitted that the key-answer to Question No. 2 particularly in respect of Sevagram being near Ahmedabad were wrong. He referred to flaws pointed out in the petition in support of his argument.