Back
1996 Supreme(AP) 510
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : D.REDDAPPA REDDY, LINGARAJA RATH
Convenor, J.N.T.University, Hyd. - Appellant
Versus
C.Swarnalatha - Respondent
Decided On : 06-25-96
The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring fairness and accuracy in the valuation of answer papers in entrance examinations, particularly when there is a possibility of multiple correct answers. The Court also recognized the candidates' right to challenge the correctness of key answers and seek revaluation to ensure that their answers were correctly evaluated.
Headnote:
EAMCET - Valuation of Answer Papers - Multiple Correct Answers - Key Answers Confined to Only One Answer - Revaluation of Answer Papers - Admission to Qualified Candidates - Creation of Additional Seats - Directions to Government, University, and Convenor.
Fact of the Case:
Numerous writ petitions were filed challenging the results of the 1995-96 Engineering, Agricultural Sciences, and Medical Common Entrance Test (EAMCET) due to alleged incorrect valuation of answer papers. The key answers provided by the EAMCET authorities were said to have confined the correct answers to only one option, despite the possibility of multiple correct answers for certain questions. The learned single Judge directed the revaluation of answer papers to ensure that correct answers not matching the key answers were also considered.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the key answers were demonstrably wrong in at least one instance, as acknowledged by the Convenor. The Court also held that the candidates were not barred from seeking revaluation or challenging the correctness of the key answers based on principles of natural justice.
Issues: 1. Whether the valuation of answer papers in EAMCET was conducted correctly, considering the possibility of multiple correct answers and the confinement of correct answers to only one option in the key answers? 2. Whether the candidates were entitled to revaluation of their answer papers to ensure that correct answers not matching the key answers were considered? 3. Whether the candidates who were found eligible for admission based on the revaluation were entitled to admission, even though the courses had already commenced?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the key answers were demonstrably wrong in at least one instance, as acknowledged by the Convenor. This demonstrated the possibility of errors in the valuation process and the need for revaluation to ensure fairness. 2. The Court held that the candidates were not barred from seeking revaluation or challenging the correctness of the key answers based on principles of natural justice. The Court recognized that the valuation process was not immune from scrutiny and that the candidates had a legitimate interest in ensuring that their answers were correctly evaluated. 3. The Court acknowledged the practical difficulties in admitting the eligible candidates to the ongoing courses due to the advanced stage of the academic year. However, the Court relied on precedents where courts had directed the creation of additional seats to accommodate students who were wrongly denied admission. The Court held that the State Government and the concerned Universities were obligated to create additional seats to accommodate the eligible candidates.
Final Decision: The Court directed the revaluation of answer papers of 1000 candidates in the open category and 500 candidates in each reserved category, beginning from the last admitted candidate. The Court also directed the creation of additional seats in the M.B.B.S. and B.D.S. courses to accommodate the candidates who were found eligible based on the revaluation. The Court issued specific directions to the Government, University, and Convenor to ensure the proper conduct of future EAMCET examinations, including the publication of key answers along with the results and the adherence to the prescribed syllabus in setting questions.
( 1 ) SINCE the core question involved in all these cases is the same, these cases are taken up together for decision. W. P. Nos. 5805 of 1996, 8082 of 1996 and 8967 of 1996 though are listed for admission, yet have been heard along with the other cases. For the purpose of disposal, they are formally admitted for hearing.
( 2 ) THE results declared of 1995-96 engineering, Agricultural Sciences and medical Common Entrance Test (for short eamcet ) were assailed before the Court in writ petitions out of which the appeals arise. The appeals as well as the other writ petitions relating to the same results raise the question of valuation of the answer papers to have not been correctly made as the questions were capable of having multiple correct answers but the key answers confined the correct answers to only one of the answers. The learned single Judge passed order on 5-12-1995 directing revaluation of 1000 answer papers in order of merit beginning from the last admitted candidate in the open category and also of similar 500 papers in each reserved category in order of merit and to give admission to those who are found to have qualified. Pending finalisation of the process, the writ petitions were kept pending. Since the order to be passed now would conclude all the questions raised in all the cases, the appeals and the original petitions have been taken up together for disposal and are disposed of by this common judgment.
( 3 ) THE learned single Judge in his interim order of 5-12-1995 took the view to be guided by theopinion ofthe Junior Lecturers in preference to that of the experts regard ing the correctness of the questions as well as of the key answers and came to the conclusion that many questions were outside the intermediate Syllabus, many to be having more than one correct answer, the key answers to be incorrect in respect of some questions, and some questions to have been wrongly framed. In giving the directions for revaluation, the learned Judge took the view, after hearing the parties at length, that inspite of the decision of this Court in A. Swapna v. Convenor, EAMCET (1) 1993 (2) ALT 352, the key answers were not published along with the results and there was general grievance of the students of their answers being correct, though the key answers did not take notice of such answers and in view of that there was general consensus that the answers of the writ petitioners-respondents should be revalued. Direction was as such issued to the EAMCET and the Entrance test Committee to appoint a new set of examiners to make revaluation of the answers of the writ petitioners taking into consideration whether, besides the key answer, the answers given by the writ petitioners-respondents could also be taken as correct answers to the questions, and if as a result of the revaluation any of the writ petitioner-respondents qualified for admission, the competent authority shal1 allot him or her or them to such institutions to which they are qualified in order or merit. The results of the exercise was directed to be subject to the final decision in that cases. By the time the directions were issued on 5-12-1995, number of similar petitions had been filed, but had not been listed before the Court. Some of those petitions had also been filed earlier than the writ petitions in which the orders on 5-12-1995 was passed. Some other writ petitions were also filed after the order on 5-12-1995 was passed.
( 4 ) AGAINST the interim order dated 5-12-1995 the Convenor, EAMCET filed the present writ appeals of which Writ appeal No. 2/1996 alone came up for admission first. The Division Bench consisting of the Hon ble the Chief Justice and Justice B. Sudershan Reddy, having admitted the writ appeal, gave the following directions by order dated 29-12-1995 in supersession of the order of the learned single Judge. "1 EAMCET Examination Test committee shall appoint a new set of examiners, entrustto them the answer books of the writ
