D AARATI DEENDAYAL Vs. CONVENOR EAMCET EXAMINATION HYD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a candidate for the qualifying examination to M.B.B.S. She appeared in EAMCET-1998 Examination on 14th May, 1998. Time schedule to the examination was from 2.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. She submits that she was given the paper at 2.20 p.m. 10 minutes time was given for reading the instructions and she started answering the questions at 2.30 p.m. She found repetition of question No. 51 and question No. 75 at about 2.55 p.m. She informed the Invigilator and the Invigilator told her to continue answering the other questions, in the meantime, according to the petitioner, for next 40 minutes three Invigilators repeatedly one after the other came to her and asked about her problem. Thereafter it was realised that there was a mixing of question sheets of different Codes, Code-B and D were mixed disproportionately in all the subjects when only questions of Code-B should have been in the question papers. This was the mistake committed by the Invigilators and first respondent. Thereafter, between 3.35 p.m. and 3.45 p.m. another Invigilator came and handed over hera new 'B' Code paper and she was asked to answer the questions contained in the new paper book. According to the petitioner she was also asked to erase all the answers that she had marked in three subjects. In between, the petitioner according to her, lost time of more than one hour fifteen minutes. Record has also been produced. There are two question books but the answer sheet is only one. The petitioner states that she pleaded for extra time but it was not given to her. Eventually she could not get the requisite rank for admission. She has filed this writ petition and seeks a direction to the respondents that she should be admitted to M.B.B.S.

(2.) The facts narrated above are almost admitted. However, a plea has beentaken in the counter that when the mistake was pointed out by the candidate she was directed by the invigilating staff to answer the questions printed in the first book till another question paper book was provided to her. It is also submitted that, in fact there were two such other candidates who had faced the same difficulty and a second booklet was given to them at 3.30 p.m. It is also stated that the candidate noticed the defect in the paper at 3.00 p.m. It is also stated that, between 2.30 p.m. and 3.00 p.m. the petitioner would have not attempted more than 30 to 35 questions and at 3.00 p.m. she had been asked to answer questions in the pages with Code AM 98-B of the defective booklet given to her. So, the case of the respondents is that she did not lose much time. It is also stated that the candidate attempted 199 questions out of 200 questions, therefore it is obvious that because of loss of time she did not suffer. It was stated during the arguments also by the learned Counsel for the respondents that even if she is given marks for the unattempted question even then she would not make a grade which would entitle her for admission.

(3.) Some what similar case was decided by the Supreme Court in C. TulasiPriya vs. A.P. State Council of Higher Education. In that case, the petitioner had been able to answer 170 out of 200 questions and because of loss of time she had not been able to attempt 30 questions. The Supreme Court ruled that the marks obtained by her out of 170 questions would have been 94.555%, therefore they directed that her over all rank should be fixed on the basis that she obtained 94.555% out of 200 questions.