MADHUCHHANDA PADHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy in this case relates to admission to the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. course in the three medical colleges in the State for the session 1988-89. The petitioner who appeared at the Entrance Examination seeking admission to the said course having been unsuccessful has filed this writ application praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to admit her into the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. course or in the alternative to quash the result of the Entrance Examination and direct fresh examination to be held. The State of Orissa represented by the Secretary, Health Services, the Director of Health Services and Medical Education and the Convenor of M.B.B.S. Entrance Examination-cum-Principal, V.S.S. Medical College, Burla have been impleaded as opposite parties in the writ application.

(2.) The facts stated in the writ application, shorn of unnecessary details, are as follows : The petitioner had a brilliant academic career, passed the 10th class in the first division and secured second position in Berhampur University in Botany (Hons.) in the second year Science Examination of 1988 of the plus 3 course. She appeared at the Entrance Examination held on 25-9-88 for selection of candidates to the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. course. She was assigned the Roll No. M-44-E. The examination was objective type where each candidate was required to answer in all 150 questions in four subjects, viz., Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English. The total marks were 150. In the question paper itself the answer were indicated and the candidate was required to put a cross mark in the relevant space in the answer sheet. For every correct answer one mark was to be given. There was no minus marking for wrong answers. After the examination was held, to maintain secrecy, the portion of the answer sheet containing roll No. was ripped off and in its place a Code number was allotted. The answer sheets were then sent to the computer for correction and after correction each answer sheet was de-coded and the marks allotted were given against the corresponding roll number. The petitioner alleged that she was expecting to secure 112 marks and to secure a position amongst the first ten candidates in the merit list. But she was shocked to find that she was unsuccessful. On enquiry she learnt from reliable sources that at the stage of de-coding the answer sheets, manipulation was made and the marks secured by her were allotted to some other candidate. The petitioner further alleged that the last candidate selected for admission to M.B.B.S. course had secured 91 marks and the highest marks secured were 118. The petitioner contended that though she was eligible to be selected for taking admission to the M.B.B.S. course she was not selected on account of large scale manipulation committed by the subordinate staff of the V.S.S. Medical College who handled the examination papers due to doctors' strike during the relevant period. Subsequently the petitioner filed a further affidavit after her counsel had opportunity to peruse the merit list and the answer sheet of the petitioner which were produced by the learned counsel for the opposite parties in pursuance of the direction of the Court. It was stated in the said affidavit that her position in the merit list was 226 and she had secured a total mark of 91 along with 19 others; that the petitioner's position amongst the candidates who secured 91 marks was 14th and the candidate securing 11th position in the 91 marks series had taken admission. She further alleged that as per clause 9.3 of the Prospectus, in case of candidates securing equal marks at the Entrance Examination according to the list prepared under Cl.9.1 their inter se merit was to be determined according to their marks secured in Physics, Chemistry and Biology at the Entrance Examination and in case of further tie their inter se merit was to be determined according to their marks secured in Biology and Chemistry. The petitioner's total marks being equal to 19 other candidates their inter se merit could be determined as per the above mentioned clause of the prospectus eliminating the marks secured in English and taking into account the number of correct answers given in Physics, Chemistry and Biology. The petitioner asserted that she had been erroneously given 83 marks after excluding marks in English and had been assigned 14th position amongst the candidates who had secured total marks of 91. Indeed she had secured 89 marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology and therefore was entitled to be placed in the first position amongst the candidates who secured 91 marks and her position in the merit list ought to have been shown as 213. On these averments the petitioner claimed that she was entitled to be admitted to the M.B.B.S. course.

(3.) Two affidavits have been filed in behalf of the opp. parties in reply to the writ petition, both of them sworn to by Shri Naba Kishore Satpathy, Convenor of the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Selection Board and Principal, V.S.S. Medical College, Burla. Refuting the allegations made in the writ petition and the claim of the petitioner, it is stated in the affidavits that as revealed from the papers the petitioner secured 91 marks out of 150 and her position was 226. The candidate who had secured 92 marks and was placed in the 211th position in the general merit list was the last candidate selected to the M.B.B.S. course. Regarding the procedure followed for evaluation of the answer sheets it is stated in the counter affidavit that after the examination was completed, all the answer sheets (coded), key answers and the informations regarding distribution of question in respect of each of the subjects were supplied to the computer centre. The coded answer sheets were evaluated by the computer. Thereafter the coded evaluated answer sheets were de-coded by the computer and arranged according to merit. The computer centre was apprised of provision in clause 9.3 of the prospectus regarding solution in case of tie amongst candidates securing same marks. During the process, there were instances where the candidates had secured equal marks and in such circumstances the inter se merit was determined by the computer keeping in view clause 9.3 of the prospectus and the information regarding distribution of questions of such subject. After finalising the entire procedure the computer centre provided the final merit list of the candidates from which the selection was made to M.B.B.S./B.D.S. course. The opp. parties further stated in the counter affidavit that selection to the M.B.B.S. course was over with 92 marks for general candidates and since the petitioner had secured 91 marks the question of admitting her to M.B.B.S. course does not arise. It is further stated in the affidavit that there is no vacancy in any of the three medical colleges in M.B.B.S. course. Regarding admission to the B.D.S. course, it is the case of the opp. parties that 12 candidates from the general merit list have been selected for admission to the B.D.S. course and at present there is one seat lying vacant. The petitioner is not amongst the candidates selected for admission to B.D.S. course since her position is 15th amongst the candidates who secured 91 marks.