KRISHNA KAVERI PATNAIK Vs. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING-CUM-CHAIRMAN M B B S SELECTION BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, youngster, who has a brilliant academic career, with the aspiration to take the Hippocratic oath, sat for the Entrance Examination conducted by the State through a Selection Board for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course, 1982.

(2.) For the purpose of the test, certain objective type questions are set. The system is different from the one, one gets accustomed to, in course of the traditional form of examination and tests conducted in the schools and Colleges. Each question indicates a few probable answers, one of which is the exact correct answer, the others may be incorrect or not so very exact. The question indicates a box or a few boxes. The question is answered by putting the appropriate mark corresponding to the answer selected by the candidate. With a view to eliminating bluffs, instructions indicate that a wrong answer would entail one minus point. The candidates are further instructed that where he or she does not know the answer, that is to say, if the question is left unanswered, the box should not be left blank, but should be scored through by putting cross in it. Failure to put a cross where the question is not answered would also entail a minus mark.

(3.) The petitioner took the examination held on 30-9-1982 at the S.C.B. Medical College Centre. There were hundred questions with answers suggested. The duration of the examination was one hour and the questions carried 200 marks. So, for a correct answer a candidate was entitled to two marks and for a wrong answer liability for deduction of one mark was incurred. So also if a blank was left without a cross mark where the question was not answered. The petitioner has contended that the room was crowded. She felt dizzy due to suffocation and after answering such questions which she could, she handed over the answer paper to the invigilator. By then the allotted time was not up. According to her there were fifteen minutes still to go. As soon as she had handed over the answer paper and was about to leave the Centre, she recollected that the blanks in respect of questions which she had not answered, had not been scored through by putting cross over each. She immediately approached the invigilator to permit her to score through the blanks left by her inadvertently. According to the petitioner, the invigilator hesitated lest she might answer a few more questions. But the petitioner pleaded that she would only score through the blanks in his presence by putting a cross over each and would not add anything else to her answer paper. The Invigilator, however, did not accede to the plea and she was advised to represent her case to the Board.