IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that arbitrary changes to examination criteria post-exams undermine fairness, violating principles of administrative justice.

JUDGMENT :

D.K. Singh, J.

These writ petitions have been filed by the students who have passed 10 + 2 examinations from the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi and who have appeared in Kerala Engineering, Architecture and Medical Entrance Examination 2025. The petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the Government dated 01.07.2025 in Ext.P6 in W.P.(C) No.24767/2025 issued at 16.48.02 hours whereby the Government changed the prospectus stating that the entrance examination marks and class examination marks should be maintained in 50:50 ratio, but in respect of the Maths, Physics, and Chemistry, the marks obtained in +2 examination shall be in the ratio of 5:3:2.

2. The prospectus for examination was issued on 19.02.2025, which prescribed that the marks of Maths, Physics and Chemistry shall be in the ratio of 1:1:1. After changing this prospectus and formulae for counting the marks obtained in Class 10 + 2, i.e., in Maths, Physics and Chemistry in the ratio of 5:3:2 instead of 1:1:1 on 01.07.2025, the result was published on the same day at 17.48 hours, exactly one hour after the prospectus got changed.

3. The earlier prospectus was prepared on the basis of the recommendation of the expert committee in the year 2011. The said prospectus held the field for fourteen long years. But, suddenly, the Government realised in its wisdom that there were so-called glaring illegalities in the prospectus. Therefore, it needed to be changed one hour before the time of publication of the rank list on 01.07.2025.

4. Mr P.G. Pramod, learned Senior Government Pleader, submits that clause 1.6 of the prospectus gives power to the Government to make changes in the prospectus at any point of time, even after the examination is conducted and even on the date of publishing the rank list.

5. Ms Bhanu Thilak, learned Counsel, appearing for the interveners, also supports the contention of the learned Senior Government Pleader and has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Seema Sebastian v. State of Kerala , [2023 (3) KHC 284] , particularly paragraph 3, which reads thus:

“8. We would have simply accepted the argument that eligibility criteria in a prospectus cannot be changed in the normal course after the last date for submitting applications. The prospectus settles the candidates’ admission criteria, etc. and gives a fair level playing field for every candidate who aspires for admission. A new claim cannot be admitted in the prospectus before the last date of submitting applications for admission. Amendment to the prospectus stands totally in a different perspective when there is a hostile discrimination between or among different classes standing on the same footing. If the prospectus fixes an eligibility criteria which offends Art.14, it cannot be said it will hold good for everyone to participate in the same manner as provided under the prospectus without amendment. The right to challenge cannot be taken away merely because there is a timeline fixed in the prospectus. No doubt, laches may sometimes be canvassed as a defence to deny relief but not to reject the challenge. When all similarly situated persons are not treated alike, that is open for challenge before the Constitutional Court. An injustice cured cannot be considered as a change of eligibility criteria. If such arguments are sustained, that would amount to denial of the right to challenge such arbitrary clauses in the prospectus. No candidates can be denuded of fundamental rights on the ground that the prospectus sets a deadline. It is in that background that the present case has to be examined.

6. While possessing the power to do something is one