ANKITA GUPTA Vs. MAHARSHI DYANAND SARASWATI UNIVERSITY AJMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioners is that the paper setters have committee errors while giving correct answers to the questions set by them and therefore, they supplied wrong answers in the "key answer" supplied for evolution of the marks of the students, who appeared in Pre-Medical and Pre-Veterinary Examinations held in Rajasthan. According to the petitioners answers of 16 questions are wrong in `key answer. ' THE one answer consists of three marks and on giving wrong answer by the student, he gets one negative mark for each wrong answer. THErefore, in present test, a student who gave in fact, right answer, but that answer was treated as wrong answer because it is not as per the answers given in `key answer' supplied to the University by the paper setter. According to learned counsels for the petitioners thereby in case, when a student even when gave right answer for one question still he is deprived from four marks for one question. In total for 16 questions, he looses 64 marks. It is also submitted that in view of the tight competition, as about more than 30,000 students have appeared for this examination, wrong marking for one question may put a student below in rank to number of students and thereby that student may not get the admission in the MBBS or Veterinary Courses and may also not get the college of his choice and at the place of his choice. Not only this, but in fact large number of meritorious students will be deprived from the admission in MBBS or Veterinary Courses. According to learned counsels for the petitioners future of each and every student is not only important, but in case, he will be deprived from admission in such a technical course, it will cause trauma for life for the student and that frustration cannot be cured by any means and that frustration will be for whole of the life of the student.

(3.) LEARNED Addl. Advocate General appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 vehemently submitted that the writ petitions of the petitioners are not maintainable, firstly because of the fact that writ petitions which have been filed jointly are not maintainable as each student has his own grievance and he cannot join the issue when his own stand is not supported by co- petitioner. It is also submitted that when one of the students says that correctness of the answer of one question is not in dispute then the student joining with him cannot say that answer of that question is wrong. It is also submitted by the learned Addl. Advocate General that there were 300 questions for all the three papers (100 questions for each paper ). Out of 300 questions, the petitioners by their best effort could find out only 16 questions of which according to them answers given in the "key answer" are wrong and now in view of the experts opinion it is clear that the contentions of learned counsels for the petitioners is wrong and only answers of six questions have been opined by the experts to be wrong. It is also submitted that the experts' opinion clearly reveal that they too are not in agreement for giving answers to the questions, therefore, in such circumstance, it will not be just and proper for this Court to accept the experts report even for six questions for the purpose of discarding the answers given by the paper setter for the questions in the "key answer" because the paper setter also is an expert and his opinion can be said to be a first opinion of an expert for the answers given for the questions by him in the key answer. It was further submitted that the petitioners have projected their grievances out of proportion because of the simple reason that each and every student will not be benefited if the answer given by these experts in pursuance of the order of this Court is accepted and as correct and their marks are evaluated according to the answers given by the experts of the Jodhpur University and Udaipur University. According to Addl. Advocate General, not only this but even if the answers books of the petitioners are re-evaluated in accordance with the answers given by the experts from Udaipur University and Jodhpur University even then in one subject about 98% of the students will get the benefit of increase of four marks and by that there will be no change in the merit as all will get four marks. It is also submitted that the petitioners failed to disclose that total number of seats are 486 for the MBBS Course out of which 363 seats are for boys and 123 seats are for girls students. These seats of boys and girls are also distributed amongst the students of General category, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, OBC and others. Therefore, there is less possibility of change in position of any of the students even if the answer books are re- evaluated. It is also submitted that the petitioners though submitted that they may be put to an disadvantageous position, but that appears to be only imaginary and there is likelihood that even not 50% or more substantial number of students will get the admission in the Course of their choice in counseling. It is also submitted that the placement of a student in a particular college cannot be equated with total denial of the admission to the students and looking to the larger interest of completion of the process of the admission in time, if one or two persons or some of the students may have to suffer some inconvenience then that cannot be a ground for re-evaluation of all the copies of all the students as prayed by the petitioners in their writ petitions. It is also submitted that the persons who are in merits above the petitioners, neither have been impleaded as party nor some of them as representatives, have been impleaded as party in the writ petitions. Therefore, in case any order will be passed by this Court for re-evaluation of all the answer books or only of the students who are in merit then that will be an order against those persons whose merit is likely to be effected by the order of this Court.