Court should defer to academic expertise and not interfere in matters involving academic judgment.

Judgment

Shantanu Kemkar, J. :-

The petitioners are candidates who had appeared in the M. P. Pre Medical Test, 2012 (for short "the MPPMT") examination conducted by the M. P. Professional Examination Board (for short "the Examination Board"). In the said examination for the year 2012 for 2884 seats more than 38,000 candidates submitted on line applications. After scrutinizing the applications, the Examination Board issued the admission cards and on 11-6-2012 conducted the examination.

2. After examination, on 12-6-2012 the Examination Board published the model answers on their website and formed the Committee of Subject Experts for examination of the questions of question paper along with the answers suggested by the paper-setter and moderator in terms of the Pre Medical Examination Test Rules, 2012 (for short "the Rules"). The Subject Experts so appointed examined all the questions and the objections submitted by the various persons/candidates in response to the publication of the model answers on the website. After examination, the Experts Committee recommended for cancellation of 14 questions.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the decision so taken by the Experts Committee and the result declared by the Examination Board on 20-6-2012 on the basis of such decision, the petitioners have filed these petitions seeking revival of cancelled 14 questions with a prayer to order for revaluation of the answer-sheets in the light of the modification.

4. In Writ Petition No. 6407 of 2012, apart from challenging the decision of the Experts Committee, it has been averred that the petitioner had answered more than 160 questions correctly and, therefore, was entitled for more than 160 marks but the same have not been awarded to her and in spite of a prayer being made for revaluation, it has not been ordered as yet.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that the cancellation of the 14 questions by the Experts Committee and the Examination Board is illegal as those questions and answers with options were correct, but they have wrongly been cancelled. According to the petitioner by doing so, the Examination Board has caused serious prejudice to them and by this illegal act on the part of the Examination Board, the petitioners received less marks. In support the petitioners have placed reliance on the text books and the document showing that answers to many questions which have been cancelled treating to be wrong have been treated as correct by the text books and by the other States examination body.

6. The first Respondent - Examination Board has stated that in terms of Rule 3.12 of Rules a Committee of the Subject Experts was constituted for each subject, namely, Physics, Chemistry, Botany and Zoology. For these four subjects, four Subject Experts for each subject, totalling to 16 Experts were appointed. The Subject Experts considered and decided the objections raised by the candidates in respect of their subject and made recommendation of cancellation of 14 questions. The first Respondent - Examination Board in its reply extracted the report submitted by the Subject Experts Committee giving reasons recommending cancellation of 14 questions. The Examination Board has relied upon the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jabalpur in the case of Ankit Tiwari vs. State of M.P. and another, decided on 3-8-2012, Writ Petition No. 11589 of 2012 and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the averments made in the petitions, reply, rejoinder and the annexures.

8. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that the action of the first Respondent - Examination Board to cancel the 14 questions which should not have been cancelled being correct has caused prejudice to the petitioners inasmuch as the petitioners marks were reduced by such cancellation. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur University and others vs. Samir Gupta and others, AIR 198