RACHANA MEHRA Vs. PROFESSIONAL EXAMINATION BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI A. M. Naik counsel for the petitioner. Shri R. A. Roman, counsel for the respondents 1 to 3. Heard counsel. The petitioner is aggrieved because her right to get admission in a medical college in the State has been nipped in the bud. There is a board constituted by the State which goes by the name of Professional examination Board for short, the 'board' entrusted with the responsibility of conducting entrance tests for candidates seeking admission into the Engineering and Medical Colleges of the State. The petitioner took the test, but as per annexure P/6, the mark-sheet, it is found that her answer script in subject chemistry was not valued. When a representation was made, the Board, vide its letter dated 20-7-1988 (Annexure P/8), informed petitioner's father that his daughter's answer script in Chemistry had not been valued because she had violated the requisite instructions made in that regard.

(2.) ON 23-8-1988, the petition was admitted, but on that date, we directed state of Madhya Pradesh also to be impleaded as party/respondent. On the next date namely, 25-8-1988, we took the view that the matter has to be heard and disposed of expeditiously so that petitioner's right agitated is expeditiously adjudicated so as not to impair her prospects of admission. On that date, we made a direction to the Board to cause to be produced before us today the answer script of the petitioner to consider her grievance. Today, Shri Roman has appeared for the respondent Board. On behalf of the State, none has appeared and we are of the view that without hearing the State this matter can be disposed of as the Us really is between the petitioner and the Board. We have looked at the zeroxed copy of the answer script which has been produced from the records brought to the Court. We have looked at the original also and have satisfied ourselves that the zeroxed copy is the true copy of the original. The zeroxed copy is kept on record, but in the sealed cover. If anything has to be made clear about result of our comparison of the two, we can say this much only that as against question No. 76, outside the last square, the letter is 'd' and that it is not 'o'.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondents, a two-fold submission is made by Shri roman. He has placed before us an unused answer script on which are printed