Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
B. C. VARMA, D. M. DHARMADHIKARI
KUMARI ANJALI SAXENA - Appellant
Versus
CHAIRMAN, P.E.BOARD, BHOPAL - Respondents
MISC. PETN. 3990 Of 1988
Decided On : 08/25/1989
MEDICAL ADMISSION - PRE-MEDICAL TEST (PMT) - KEY ANSWER - CORRECTNESS - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE - KEY ANSWER SHOULD BE ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT UNLESS IT IS PROVED TO BE WRONG - IT SHOULD NOT BE HELD TO BE WRONG BY AN INFERENTIAL PROCESS OF REASONING OR BY A PROCESS OF RATIONALISATION - THE COURT SHOULD NOT LIGHTLY INTERFERE WITH THE OPINION EXPRESSED BY ACADEMIC EXPERTS BUT MAY INTERFERE ONLY WHERE THE EXPERT TAKES A VIEW WHICH NO REASONABLE PERSON COULD POSSIBLY TAKE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Ku. Anjali Saxena and Ku. Jyoti, appeared in the combined Entrance Test Examination, conducted by the Professional Examination Board, in the medical group, for admission to the first year M.B.B.S. course. They challenged the correctness of the model answers prepared by the Board to certain questions in the Botany and Zoology papers, alleging that their answers were correct and if that is so held, they would be getting an increase in marks and should be preferred for admission to those who got lesser marks and have been admitted.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the key answer should be assumed to be correct, unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. The Court further observed that the key answer must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard it as correct. In case of doubt, the key answer has to be preferred.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners could demonstrate that the key answers to the questions, referred to by them in their respective petition and as referred to above, are incorrect? 2. Whether the Court should lightly interfere with the opinion expressed by academic experts?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioners could not demonstrate that the key answers to the questions, referred to by them in their respective petition and as referred to above, are incorrect. The Court observed that the key answers were chosen by a committee of three experts in the subject concerned and that the petitioners had not shown by reference to any text book or even by process of reasoning that the key answers cannot be said to be correct. 2. The Court held that the Court should not lightly interfere with the opinion expressed by academic experts but may interfere only where the expert takes a view which no reasonable person could possibly take.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed both the petitions.
( 1 ) THE order in this petition shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 2581 of 1989. The petitioners in both these petitions appeared at the combined Entrance Test Examination, conducted by the Professional Examination Board, in the medical group, for admission to the first year M. B. B. S. course. Petitioner, Ku. Anjali Saxena, also in the alternative sought admission to B. D. S. (Bachelor of Dental Surgery) course. Both were not found to be successful competitors for admission to the M. B. B. S. course. However, Ku. Anjali Saxena qualified for admission to B. D. S. course and has since been admitted accordingly.
( 2 ) AFTER the results of the Pre-Medical Test examination (PMT) were declared on 9/10-7-1988, certain number of candidates, including the petitioner, Ku. Anjali Saxena, applied for revaluation, as is permissible under the rules. The result of Ku. Anjali Saxena was found to be in order. Some students, however, were benefited as a result of revaluation and marks obtained by them earlier were increased considerably. Ku. Anjali Saxena got 739 marks. Initially, the last person admitted to M. B. B. S. course obtained 752 marks. Subsequently, those getting 744 marks have been admitted.
( 3 ) KU. Anjali Saxena, in her petition, alleges that the model answers prepared by the Board to questions No. 31, 56 and 68 of 'b' series in subject-Botany were wrong. Instead, her suggestion is that the answers given by her were correct and if that is so held, she would be getting an increase of 4 marks for each question. There will be thus a total increase of 12 marks. In that event, according to her, she would in all be getting 751 marks and should be preferred for admission to those who got lesser marks and have been admitted. The petitioner, Ku. Jyoti, in the connected petition No. 2581 of 1989, similarly challenges the correctness of the model answer to question No. 79 in the same paper. According to her, the answer given by her is correct, and in that event, adding 4 marks to the marks already obtained by her, at present, she gets 741 marks and in the event of her answer to question No. 79 being taken as correct, her total marks would be 745. She would then be entitled to admission in preference to the one, who has been admitted on getting 744 marks.
( 4 ) REPLYING to the contention that persons getting lesser marks have been admitted in preference to the petitioners, Shri Saxena, Learned Addl. Advocate General, pointed out that in cases of 18 candidates, who had applied for revaluation of their marks, it was found that the computers were incorrectly fed. On re-examination, the mistake was detected when the tabulation sheets were referred to and a correct mark sheet was then prepared. Finally, the correct mark sheets were taken into account in respect of those candidates alone. We have no reason to disbelieve this statement made on oath in the return. If these revised mark sheets are taken into account the contention that persons getting lesser marks than the petitioners have been preferred for admission to M. B. B. S. course, must be rejected. We, therefore, do not accept this contention.
( 5 ) COMING now to the question of correctness of the answers to the various questions, we may usefully refer to the scheme of the examination. The pattern of examination is what is called 'multiple choice of objective type test'. A number of questions are set and 4 alternative answers are indicated against each question. A committee of three experts in the subject concerned is appointed to choose the correct answer to each question. This correct answer is called 'key answer'. The committee then meets and after due deliberations, sorts out the correct answers (key answers), which are then kept in a sealed cover to be opened at the time of valuation of the question papers. Thus, all care is ensured while choosing the key answer to a given question. This key answer selected by the committee has to be accepted as the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
