ANURAG MISHRA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a hair-breadth margin his academic leap is declared foul. Petitioner complains, that is arbitrarily done. In the last Pre-Medical Test, 1991, organised by Professional Examination Board, Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner appeared at the Gwalior Centre and his Roll No. was 609794 in the general category. Admittedly, he secured more than 77% marks and it is also not denied that candidate securing 72.09% marks in the general category has qualified for admission. The quirk of misfortune that was struck the petitioner nestles in his own score: 72, against 75, out of 300 marks, in English. He complains and it is also not disputed, three marks are denied to him as his answer to question No. 99 was found wrong. That indeed is the crux of the controversy to be decided by us in this petition. So far as the legal parameters of our jurisdictional competence to decide that is concerned, those are drawn authoritatively in Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, AIR 1983 SC 1230.

(2.) Law is now well-settled that the key answer when provided as touch-stone for qualifying a candidate in such a test, that is not beyond judicial scrutiny. The only limitation circumscribing our jurisdiction their Lordships held, is that "it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct" the key answer. Scholastic opinion can be garnered ultimately, it has been held, on sifting text books. Evidently, as held by their Lordships, "it would be unfair to penalise a student for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer" if that is demonstrated to be wrong. Because, the students are supposed to apply the knowledge in answering the questions set in such test which they have derived from text books. In such cases, therefore, what is decisive is the weight of authority of the opinion of the textbook writers and benefit of that cannot be denied judicially when a complaint is made to a Writ Court of denial of due academic entitlement arbitrarily on the basis of a wrong answer.

(3.) In the instant case, reliance is placed by Shri Roman, respondent's counsel, on Rules 2.15 and 2.3 of the Rules framed by the Board. In the return also, it is stated that after the examination is over and before the valuation commences, the "Expert Committee" examines each of the questions and, inter alia, it decides whether the answer proposed by the setter is correct and also decides whether none of the four alternatives suggested is correct or there are more than one correct answers out of the four alternatives. If in any manner, any question is found faulty on any score that question is "cancelled" and each candidate is awarded due marks for that question, namely, three marks. That is the purport of Rule 2.3, while, according to Rule 2.16, the key-answer is made binding and final. We do not think if our jurisdiction to deal with the controversy is barred by these Rules.