KU. RUCHI TRIKHA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRINKING avenues, increasing population, suffer competition are stark realities. This has created a different -type of tension in the minds of the youth of today. Such are the ground realities that one may lose a job opportunity or admission to an educational institution by a fraction of grade. Is it not necessary for an examination authority to provide an atmosphere where the candidates are able to answer the question where the atmosphere is congenial and the tensions are not aggravated ? The present is a case where the respondents have disowned their responsibility in totality and have put the entire blame on the candidate alone. The facts out of which this petition arises may be noticed as under.

(2.) THE petitioner is yet to attain majority. Her guardian has filed this petition. Pre -Medical Test for the year 1994 was conducted by the Professional Examination Board. This test was held on 4th July. 1994 at Madhav Institute of Technology and Sciences, Gwalior which is the cause of this petition. The procedure was to supply a question booklet to the candidates. The answers were to be given on a separate sheet. This is an objective type paper. The examination commenced at 8 A.M. The duration was 2 hours and 100 questions were to be answered. When the petitioner proceeded to attempt 41st question, she found that this question was not there instead the sequence of questions was in the following order:

(3.) THIS break is sequence of the number, according to the petitioner broke the sequence of her thought process as well. She got nervous. She approached the Superintendent as also the invigilator. There is some dispute as to the point when this fact was brought to the notice of the above officials. The petitioner slates that this was done as soon as she reached question No. 41 and found that this was not in order. The respondents in the return state that this protest was lodged only at the end as the petitioner wanted more time to answer the questions. I would he best to rely upon the affidavit of one Abhay Mishra who was Invigilator in this examination. This is Annexure R/4. This is what was stated in para 2 : -