Dismissed

Sindhu Joseph v. State of Kerala & Another

Kerala HC18 Nov 2021WP(C)/5009/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition filed by a candidate who failed the State Eligibility Test in Chemistry. The petitioner alleged incorrect questions in the 2010 exam question paper and sought mark reconsideration. The Court held that the petitioner's complaints were belated and that re-evaluating the 2010 exam long after the fact would prejudice other candidates.

What did the court decide?

Relief to cancel incorrect questions and re-consider marks was granted none.

Sindhu Joseph Vs State of Kerala & Another — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 5009 OF 2011

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SINDHU JOSEPH, W/O. JOBY CYRIAC, 36/2751, AZAD ROAD, KOCHI - 17.

¶8

BY ADV SRI. GEORGE SEBASTIAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

3 THE DIRECTOR LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

¶13

SMT. SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN SC, LBS SRI. K.K. RAZIYA, SC, LBS CENTRE SRI. FAISAL - GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.5009 OF 2011

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner appeared for State Eligibility Test (for short 'SET') conducted by the 3^rd respondent on 06.06.2010, however, she could not pass the said examination. The SET examination is conducted twice every year by the LBS Centre for Science and Technology, which is the agency entrusted by the Government for the conduct of the SET examination.

¶19

According to the petitioner, there were certain incorrect questions in the questionnaire in the Chemistry examination and because of the incorrect questions the petitioner could not do well in the examination. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the mistakes in the questionnaire of the said examination submitted Exts.P1, P1(a) and P3 complaints before the 3^rd

¶20

WP(C).No.5009 OF 2011

¶21

¶22

respondent. According to the petitioner, an expert committee was appointed by the State Government to enquire about the low results in the said examination, as only 5.9% of the candidates who appeared for the SET examination 2010 could pass the examination. The petitioner submits that if there were no mistakes in the questionnaire, she would have passed the examination. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for direction to the 1^st respondent to consider Exts.P1 and P1 (a) complaints and Ext.P3 representation and to take steps to cancel the incorrect questions in the question paper for SET 2010 examination and to re-consider the marks awarded to her.

¶23

3 . Heard the learned coun sel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶24

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent wherein, it is stated that no complaints were received regarding the preparation of

¶25

WP(C).No.5009 OF 2011

¶26

¶27

question paper and conduct of SET examination 2010 for Chemistry and the complaint of the petitioner was received after the last date prescribed for the submission of the written complaint, ie., after 16.06.2010. The complaints received after five working days from the date of publication of answer keys cannot be entertained. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that no expert committee was constituted in connection with SET exam 2010. Since the petitioner's complaint was belated, the same was not considered.

¶28

The examination for S ET that is called in question in this petition was conducted in the year 2010. The issue as to whether the questionnaire were incorrect or not is not for this Court to examine in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Though the petitioner states that an expert committee was appointed by the Government into the complaint regarding incorrect questionnaire and low pass in the examination, the counter affidavit reveals that no such

¶29

WP(C).No.5009 OF 2011

¶30

¶31

expert committee was constituted.

¶32

According to the instructions issued to the candidates, any complaint with regard to the questionnaire or the answer key has to be submitted within five days from the date of publication of the answer key. According to the respondents all the complaints received from the petitioner were belated and after the publication of the answer key and therefore cannot be considered.

¶33

It is pertinent to note that the relief prayed for by the petitioner to cancel the incorrect questions in the question paper of SET 2010 examination cannot be granted at this distance of time, since, that would put the other students who had written the same examination in 2010, to prejudice and would create lot of confusion among the candidtes. Since the petitioner has not submitted objection to the answer key published by the LBS within the time stipulated, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition.

¶34

WP(C).No.5009 OF 2011

¶35

¶36

The writ petition has for all purposes become stale

¶37

and is accordingly, dismissed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶40

SPR

¶41

WP(C).No.5009 OF 2011

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶45

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14.06.2010 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIA E-MAIL. EXHIBIT P1 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15.06.2010 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIA E-MAIL. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ONE OF THE NEWS ITEMS PUBLISHED IN 'MATHRUBHUMI DAILY' DATED 11.01.2011. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED (NIL) SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION WITH SUPPORTING DATA SENT ALONG WITH EXT.P3. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DR.M.R.PRATHAPACHANDRA KURUP, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF APPLIED CHEMISTRY, CUSAT.

¶46

RESPONDENTS'S EXHIBITS: NIL.

Sindhu Joseph v. State of Kerala & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sindhu Joseph v. State of Kerala & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jameela Vs Ibrahim

T.O.Aleyas Vs the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

Kaithari Thozhilali Congress Vs State of Kerala

Bijoy Geevarghese Vs Shabeer.a.

Sarun G. Vs State of Kerala

K.X.Martin & Others Vs K.S.E.B. & Another