RAGHUNATH PRADHAN AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF ORISSA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ applications are of the "annual check, up category" filed by candidates who appear at the Annual Entrance Examination for selection of candidates for admission to the MBBS/BDS courses. Present applications pertain to 1991 -92 session. Such applications have become almost a ritualistic feature, and candidates question correctness of the questions set and/or answers indicated to be correct answers and seek this Court's 'check up". For the examination in question, the question paper contained 150 multiple choice objective questions. Four alternative answers were indicated against each question. According to the examining body only one of them is the correct answer. The body selects the correct answer or most appropriately correct answer which is normally called the "key answer". A candidate is required to cross the alphabet box which stood for the answer, which according to him, was the correct or most appropriately correct answer.

(2.) ACCORDING to the' petitioners, either a large number of questions are wrong, none of the alternative answers is a correct answer, or, the alternative answers contained more than one correct or most appropriately correct answer. By way of traversal, the opposite parties have averred that the answer indicated by the candidates should be the same as the key answer chosen, and even if two alternatives could be correct, or most appropriately correct answer, no credit can be given if the answer indicated by the candidate does not tally with the key answer. The key answers selected by the committee is the correct answer for the purpose of evaluation, even if the second correct answer is one of the alternatives suggested. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kumari Anjali Saxena v. The Chairman, Professional Examination Board, Bhopal and Ors. : .

(3.) THE learned counsel for the opposite parties has also urged that the Court being not an expert in technical matters should not tinker with the view of the examiners of the examining body. Though the argument is attractive, it is not sound. Where the method adopted or decision taken is clearly unreasonable and perverse and demonstratively wrong the Court has to act and should not shun to interfere because the key answer has been suggested by experts, or the examining body.