Petitioner challenged State Eligibility Test result, arguing wrong answer key and ambiguous questions caused failure. Court rejected claims, stating prospectus rules on rounding and authority's power to delete ambiguous questions were legally valid.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2016/7TH SRAVANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 16138 of 2016 (N)
PETITIONER :
SHAMSEERA.P., AGED 41 YEARS, W/O. AKBAR SALIM, PATHAYATHINKAL, P.O.CHERPLASSERY, PALAKKAD-679 503.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.S.SHYAM KUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3. LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR R3 BY ADV. SMT.K.K.RAZIYA, SC, LBS CENTRE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-07-2016, ALONG WITH WPC.NO. 16161/2016, THE COURT ON 29-07-2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 16138 of 2016 (N)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
SHAJI P. CHALY, J
W.P.(C)NO.16138 OF 2016 &
W.P.(C)NO.16161 OF 2016
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The subject matter of the above writ petitions are intrinsically connected and therefore I propose to pass a common judgment. Brief facts discernible from the writ petitions are extracted hereunder separately.
W.P.(C)NO.16138/2016:
W.P.(C)NO.16138 OF 2016 & W.P.(C)NO.16161 OF 2016 2
books, the correct answer is (B) carbon dioxide. However, the said objection was not considered. Likewise, answer to question No.39, recipient of Dada Sahib Falke Award in 2014 is Shasi Kapoor and the petitioner has given the answer correctly. But by Ext.P5(a), question No.39 is deleted saying that the question is ambiguous. According to the petitioner, there is no ambiguity in question No.39, and the question and answer is definite and therefore exclusion is illegal and arbitrary. Petitioner has secured 113 marks and the percentage is 47.75%. The aggregate cut off mark for both paper is 48 and even by rounding of 47.75% to 48%, the petitioner is entitled to pass. That apart, if answer to question No.39,is reckoned
and the correct answer to question No.20 , is taken into consideration, petitioner would get above 48% and therefore the deletion of the question and the reckoning of a wrong answer to question No.20, caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that
W.P.(C)NO.16138 OF 2016 & W.P.(C)NO.16161 OF 2016 3
petitioner has secured minimum pass mark of 40% each for both papers. Accordingly, petitioner seeks to declare that she has passed the State Eligibility Test by securing aggregate percentage of 48 marks.
W.P.(C)No.16161/2016:
W.P.(C)NO.16138 OF 2016 & W.P.(C)NO.16161 OF 2016 4
percentage prescribed is 48% in aggregate with a
minimum of 40% for each paper. Immediately after the examination, third respondent has published answer key and petitioner noticed that, question No.80, the answer given in the answer key is incorrect. Question No.80, is 'which of the following gases is major component of green house gasses'. Petitioner has answered the same as carbon monoxide out of the four option provided. But however in terms of the key answer same is water vapour. Petitioner produced text book extracts to establish that the answer provided by the petitioner is the correct along with objection, within the prescribed time, however, third respondent has not corrected the answer key in respect of the said question by publishing corrections in the published answer keys.
W.P.(C)NO.16138 OF 2016 & W.P.(C)NO.16161 OF 2016 5
option (D), Shasi Kapoor as correct answer. In Ext.P4 answer key, it is correctly shown option (D) Shasi Kapoor itself. Therefore according to the petitioner, petitioner is entitled to get marks for the said question also. However, by publishing Ext.P5, question No.99 is deleted stating that same is ambiguous. Petitioner has also produced Exts.P6 and P7, and Article published in Hindu Daily dated 23.03.2015, and relevant extract from wikipedia webpage respectively. Therefore, according to the petitioner, if the petitioner is provided with marks for the said two questions, petitioner is entitled to get aggregate pass percentage of 48% and it is in this back drop the said writ petition is filed.
W.P.(C)NO.16138 OF 2016 & W.P.(C)NO.16161 OF 2016 6
advanced is that, the answer provided by the petitioners to question No.20 equivalent to question No.80 in the other case is carbon dioxide. But, learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that more appropriate answer is “water vapour”. However, there is no serious dispute that water vapour is the more appropriate answer and therefore there is no mistake in the answer key provided. Petitioners could not establish before this court that water vapour is not the appropriate answer. Therefore, it can be seen that there is no illegality on the part of the third respondent in not providing marks for the petitioners. So far as question No.39 is concerned, equivalent to No.99 in the other case. It is true that, Shasi Kapoor was awarded with Dada Sahib Falke Award in the year 2014. But the question in the question paper was, who was the recipient of Dada Sahib Falke Award in 2014. Dada Sahib Falke Award was received by the awardee for the year 2013 in the year 2014. In that view of the matter,
W.P.(C)NO.16138 OF 2016 & W.P.(C)NO.16161 OF 2016 7
it can be seen that even though Shasi Kapoor was the awardee for the year 2014, the same was received only in the year 2015, whereas the awardee of 2013 has received the award in 2014. Therefore there is ambiguity in the said question. According to the learned counsel for the third respondent, candidates have provided both answers and therefore the question is treated as ambiguous and deleted. That apart it is contended that, petitioners have participated in the test after understanding the stipulations and parameters contained under the prospectus. Learned counsel has invited my attention to clause (14), which dealt with publication of answer keys and exclusion of question from evaluation. That apart it is also contended that, the objection raised by the petitioners were considered and the third respondent did not find any reason for correcting the answer keys in accordance with the answers provided by the petitioners. That apart it is also contended that, when there is ambiguity, the
W.P.(C)NO.16138 OF 2016 & W.P.(C)NO.16161 OF 2016 8
Director of the third respondent is vested with powers
to remove the same.
“In computing marks, fraction shall be rounded off to the first two decimal places in the calculation of aggregate percentage of marks only. No rounding off of marks shall be made for calculating pass percentage for paper I and paper II separately”.
it rounded off, since applying the theory of 'decimal fraction' when rounded off, petitioners will not get
W.P.(C)NO.16138 OF 2016 & W.P.(C)NO.16161 OF 2016 9
48%, which is the aggregate pass marks. That apart as discussed above, more appropriate answer is “water vapour” rather than “carbon dioxide” and therefore the answer key provided cannot be said to be incorrect. So far as, the question with respect to the recipient of Dada Sahib Falke Award there was ambiguity since the awardee differs from recipient and the recipient was actually the awardee for the year 2013. Therefore the deletion of the said question being ambiguous cannot be said to be illegal or bad. So also since the petitioners participated in the test, knowing fully well, rules of the game, petitioners cannot turn around and attack them. Issues raised in the writ petitions are take care of under clauses 3 and 14 of the prospectus and therefore the actions of the authority can never be termed as bad or foul. Reckoning the above circumstances, I do not think that petitioners have made out any case, legal or factual warranting interference of this court exercising the power of discretion under Article 226 of the
W.P.(C)NO.16138 OF 2016 & W.P.(C)NO.16161 OF 2016 Constitution of India.
10
Resultantly, writ petitions fail and accordingly they
are dismissed.
sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE
R.AV
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to marks rounded off to achieve the aggregate pass percentage of 48%.
Whether the deletion of ambiguous questions and correction of answer keys by the examining authority constitutes illegality warranting judicial interference.
Shamseera.P.
State of Kerala
Directorate of Higher Secondary Education
LBS Centre for Science and Technology
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
