SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.
Kanpur University, and others, Appellants
Verasus
Samir Gupta and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal Nos. 4092-4115 and 4068-4091 of 1983, D/- 27-9-1983.
AND
State of U.P. and others, Appellants
Versus
Samir Gupta and others, Respondents.
U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 - Section 29 - Medical Colleges - Admission - Examination - Appellant herein, was entrusted with task of holding Test - By any standard, it is a stupendous task because, 20,000 applications are received every year for admission to a total number of 779 seats in 7 Medical Colleges, out of which 50 per cent are reserved seats and remaining 50% are open - Physics, Chemistry, Zoology and Botany are four subjects which are prescribed for Test - One paper is set for each subject and pattern of examination is what is called Multiple choice objective-type test - For persons belonging to yester generations, this is a newfangled concept - One hundred questions are set in each paper and four alternative answers are indicated against each question - Candidates are required to tick correct answer from out of those four - If he ticks correct answer, he secures 3 marks and if a candidate ticks an incorrect answer, he loses I mark - Each paper is of a duration of 3 hours - Snag lies in determining which out of four suggested answers is correct answer - That duty is naturally assigned to paper-setter; who is required to supply to University correct answer to each question, called the key answer - Held, High Court has held that respondents would be entitled to be given 3 marks for each of questions correctly ticked by them, and in addition they would be entitled to 1 mark for those very questions, since 1 mark was deducted from their total for each of questions wrongly answered by them - Putting it briefly, such of respondents as are found to have attempted three questions or any of them would be entitled to an addition of 4 marks per question - If answer-books are reassessed in accordance with this formula, respondents would be entitled to be admitted to M.B.B.S. course, about which there is no dispute - Accordingly, Court confirm directions given by High Court in regard to reassessment of particular questions and the admission of respondents to M.B.B.S. course - Grievance is that if she is given additional marks as directed by High Court, her place will go higher up in merit list, as a consequence whereof she would be eligible for admission to Medical College situated in her place of residence - Says that should apply to the Government in this behalf and Government could consider her application – Court do not think that there is any justification for us to interfere with order passed by High Court on this score also - Petitions will be disposed of by High Court in lght of this judgment, provided that petitioners therein make out a case for interference as students in these appeals have done - Court however, direct that no fresh petitions should be entertained by High Court and, of course, none will be entertained by Court hereafter on questions involved in these appeals arising out of test which was held - Appeals dismissed.
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
The case involves a dispute over the correctness of key answers supplied by paper-setters for a medical entrance examination, and whether students answering correctly should be awarded marks based on these key answers (!) .
The examination was a multiple-choice objective test with four subjects, each consisting of 100 questions, where correct answers earned 3 marks and incorrect answers resulted in a deduction of 1 mark (!) .
The core issue is whether errors in the key answers provided by the paper-setters, which were later found to be incorrect, should be challenged by students who answered correctly based on their understanding and reading of the questions (!) (!) .
The publication of key answers was intended to ensure transparency and fairness, but errors in these answers led to controversy and legal challenges from students who claimed their correct answers were marked as incorrect (!) (!) .
The court recognized that questions in objective tests must be clear and unambiguous, and that key answers should be presumed correct unless proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt (!) .
The court emphasized that challenges to key answers should only be entertained if it is clearly demonstrated that the key answer is wrong, not based on inferential reasoning or subjective interpretation (!) .
Several questions in different subjects (Chemistry, Zoology, Botany) were contested due to discrepancies between the key answers and authoritative textbooks or scientific opinions, leading to the conclusion that the key answers in those instances were incorrect (!) (!) (!) .
The court acknowledged the importance of maintaining fairness in examinations and suggested that the authorities should consider implementing measures such as creating standardized textbooks, improving translation accuracy, and establishing procedures for prompt correction of errors in key answers (!) .
The court directed that students who answered correctly but were marked incorrectly due to errors in the key answers should be given appropriate marks, and their admissions to medical courses should be reconsidered accordingly (!) .
It was also clarified that students who had already been admitted to other courses (e.g., Dental courses) due to these examination errors should not be disqualified from subsequent admissions based on the corrected evaluation (!) .
The court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the process of reevaluation and correction of marks should be carried out fairly and promptly to prevent injustice to students (!) (!) .
The judgment underscores the importance of accuracy, fairness, and transparency in examination systems, especially when they significantly impact students' future educational opportunities (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you require further analysis or specific legal advice based on these points.
Judgment
CHANDRACHUD, CJI.:- These appeals raise a somewhat awkward question: If a paper-setter commits an error while indicating the correct answer to a question set by him, can the students who answer that question correctly be failed for the reason that though their answer is correct, it does not accord with the answer supplied by the paper-setter to the University as the correct answer? The answer which the paper-setter supplies to the University as the correct answer is called the key answer. No one can accuse the teacher of not knowing the correct answer to the question set by him. But it seems that, occasionally, not enough care is taken by the teachers to set questions which are free from ambiguity and to supply key answers which are correct beyond reasonable controversy. The keys supplied by the paper-setters in these cases, raised more questions than they solved.
2. The respondents in these appeals applied for admission to the Medical Colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh. There are 7 Medical Colleges in the State of U. P., to which admission is granted on the basis of the result of a Combined Pre-Medical Test which is held in pursuance of the orders passed by the State Government under Section 29 of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973. The Government nominates one of the Universities in the State for holding the Test every year. In the year 1982, the Kanpur University, the appellant herein, was entrusted with the task of holding the Test. By any standard, it is a stupendous task because, 20,000 applications are received every year for admission to a total number of 779 seats in the 7 Medical Colleges, out of which 50 per cent are reserved seats and the remaining 50% are open. Physics, Chemistry, Zoology and Botany are the four subjects which are prescribed for the Test. One paper is set for each subject and the pattern of the examination is what is called the Multiple choice objective-type test. For persons belonging to yester generations, this is a newfangled concept. One hundred questions are set in each paper and four alternative answers are indicated against each question. The candidates are required to tick the correct answer from out of those four. If he ticks the correct answer, he secures 3 marks and if a candidate ticks an incorrect answer, he loses I mark. Each paper is of a duration of 3 hours.
3. So far so good, the snag lies in determining which out of the four suggested answers is the correct answer. That duty is naturally assigned to the paper-setter; who is required to supply to the University the correct answer to each question, called the key answer. The difficulty involved in evaluating a very large number of answer-books is solved by the State Government, quite .successfully, by computerising the result. The key answers are fed into a computer and the marking computerised.
4. The difficulty which arose in these cases is not due to the failure of the computer, which is quite encouraging. The habit of man is to blame the machine The difficulty arose because the key answers furnished by the paper-setters turned out to be wrong. The students got to know the key answers out of the generosity of the University. It wanted, rightly, to be frank and fair. Therefore, it published the key answers along with the result of the test. Respondents, whose names did not figure in the list of successful candidates, filed writ petitions in the High Court of Allahabad, contending that the answers ticked by them were correct and the key answers wrong. The High Court has accepted their contention and that is how the Kanpur University has come to file these appeals. There cannot be a more telling instance of Shishyat Ichhet Parajayam (Wish for defeat from your pupil). But the Gurus contend that the Shishyas are wrong and do not deserve to win.
5. There is no controversy over the questions set in the Physics paper. The controversy arises in regard to three questions, one each in the papers in Chemistry, Zoology and Botany
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.