RUCHIKA VERMA Vs. H.P.UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.W.P. No. 291/99. This writ petition has been initially filed by two candidates and subsequently another candidate was permitted to be impleaded as petitioner No. 3, besides impleading also, the fourth respondent. The petitioners were applicants for admission for graduate MBBS/ BDS courses and took part in the common entrance test conducted by the Himachal Pradesh University on behalf of the Government for admission of the students in the various colleges located in the State, which were to be ultimately made on the basis of merit to be determined with reference to the aggregate number of marks obtained in the entrance test. So far as the first petitioner is concerned, her roll number is 3609, that she applied against General category only, and that she secured 246 marks. So far as the second petitioner is concerned, her roll number is 3441 and she also applied as General candidate only and has secured 229 marks. The third petitioner appeared with roll number 5529 staking his claim also as a reserved candidate in respect of Ex. Serviceman and has secured 243 marks. Their claims and plea in support of the relief sought for was on the following grounds; (a) The Key answer in respect of question Nos. 54 and 71 in the subject of Chemistry, question No. 81 in the subject of physics and question No. 15 in the subject of Biology were incorrect and, therefore, they should be given additional marks in respect of those questions: (b) That there had been violation of instructions and candidates who against instructions used led pencil, that those who have answered by giving small alphabets and indulged in erasure and over -writing were also given marks and the same should not have been done; and (c) So far as the second petitioner is concerned, it was further claimed that she did really belong to Scheduled caste and though she did not initially apply as against such reserved category, she made a representation on 23.7.1999 to the Vice -Chairman to consider her claims also as Scheduled Caste candidate but the same was not done so and she must be considered and selected as a Scheduled Caste candidate with reference to her marks, viz. 229.

(2.) The first respondent -University filed a reply that the first petitioner is most likely to be offered a seat on account of the fact that number of candidates above her in the merit -list have not turned out for counselling. As a matter of fact at the time of hearing of the writ petition the learned counsel for the petitioner even represented that her case has been considered for admission and, therefore, she is not pressing the writ petition so far as her claim is concerned. So far as the second petitioner is concerned, it is the case of the University that since she applied only as a General candidate and not against reserved category her claims can be considered only as a General candidate and that even if the key answers are held to be wrong, as claimed by her, there is no chances of her getting selected as a general candidate, for which alone she applied. Reliance is placed upon clause 3(ii) of the prospectus in this regard. So far as candidate bearing roll number 1045 whose lapse in answering by using small alphabets was condoned on rechecking, it is stated that inspite of that he could secure only 193 marks and did not come anywhere near the selected range and, therefore, nothing turns in favour of the petitioners in this regard. So far as the claims relating to the incorrect key answers alleged by the petitioners are concerned, the University contends that the answer papers of all candidates were strictly valued as per the key answers given by the Paper setters duly checked, corrected and approved by moderators appointed for each subject to ensure that no question or their key answers should be ambiguous and wrong and such moderators are expert professors of the University in the respective subjects and that, therefore, there are no merits in the claims of the petitioners in this regard. So far as the merits of the case and the contentions of the parties on either side in respect of individual claims relating to the incorrect key answers of certain questions urged -the same will be adverted to and dealt with while considering the arguments of counsel at the appropriate stage. On the above claims, the petitioners claim that they should be declared eligible for admission to the courses applied for by them. C.W.P. No. 299/99 :

(3.) The petitioner in this writ petition claims that the key answer in respect of question Nos. 36, 59 and 81 in Physics, Question No. 15 in the subject of Biology and question Nos. 12 and 48 in the subject of Chemistry are demonstrably wrong and, therefore, the petitioner should be awarded additional marks in respect of those questions - and claims for admission should be considered on that basis. This petitioner appeared with roll number 3277 as a General candidate and has secured 243 marks. It is contended for the University that the key answer settled by them are correct, that great care has been taken to have them duly moderated by Experts in the subject before adopting the key answers suggested by the paper -setters, and that the question papers were also prepared with key answers by the eminent paper -setters in accordance with the syllabus prescribed for the examination. It is claimed, as in the other case that the answer papers were evaluated as per key answers given by the paper -setters as well as moderated by the Expert Committee and the Expert Committee for moderation was also appointed to ensure that no question should be ambiguous or have double answer or wrong key answer and that the question should have a specific one choice of answer only. Therefore, it is claimed that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. C.W.P. No. 348/99 :