The court upheld the cancellation of results based on the use of unfair means, as permitted under Rule 4.9 of the Brochure published for the admission to PMT 2012 examination.

HEMANT GUPTA, CJ.

This order shall dispose of the following writ petitions challenging the cancellation of result of the entrance test for the reason of use of unfair means vide order dated 31-12-2014. W.P. No. 6768/2015; W.P. No. 6772/2015; W.P. No. 6774/2015; W.P. No. 6775/2015; and W.P. No. 6777/2015 challenges the order dated 31-12-2014 which are in short called as Group - 1 cases. Whereas, in W.P. No. 18422/2014; W.P. No. 2053/2015; W.P. No. 2709/2015; W.P. No. 2143/2015; W.P. No. 5710/2015; W.P. No. 6769/2015; and W.P. No. 7133/2015, the challenge is to a separate order but of the same date that is 31-12-20014 which are called as Group - 2 cases. Most of the facts are common in both set of cases; therefore, they have been taken for decision together.

2. All the writ petitions arise out of the common facts i.e. that a Pre Medical Test Examination 2012 was conducted by the Professional Board of Examination (hereinafter referred to as the “Vyapam” for short) for admission to MBBS course on 10-6-2012. The result was declared on 20-6-2012. On account of irregularities in conduct of examinations by the officials of Vyapam; criminal proceedings were initiated, when FIR - crime No. 539 of 2013 was registered in Police Station Rajendra Nagar Indore on 7-7-2013. A special Task Force was constituted (STF). On the basis of investigations conducted, admission of 415 candidates was cancelled. The challenge to such order remained unsuccessful in a bunch of writ petitions since reported as Pratibha Singh Ku. (Minor) v. State of M.P., 2014 MPLJ Online 21 : 2014 (3) MPHT 178. It was revealed that unfair means were adopted in the previous years as well. Vyapam cancelled the examination of the candidates who used unfair means in the PMT examination in the years 2008 to 2012. The challenge to such cancellation remained unsuccessful in a bunch of writ petitions vide judgment since reported as Neetu Singh Markam v. State of M.P., 2014 (4) M.P.L.J. 203. The appeal before the Supreme Court stands dismissed by judgment reported as Nidhi Kaim v. State of M.P., 2017 MPLJ Online (S.C.) 2 : (2017) 4 SCC 1.

3. Earlier, the result of 14 candidates of PMT 2012 were cancelled on 24-4-2014, but such order was set aside by this Court in W.P. No. 8394/2014 and other cases vide order dated 14-11-2014. In terms of liberty granted, the OMR answer sheets of 14 such candidates and 5 other candidates were examined in respect of the allegations of mismatch of ink and interpolation in the scanning process. In respect of candidates falling in Group - 1, the finding is that the Optical mark recognition (OMR) answer sheet has been scanned twice, the second time after interpolation of the answer sheets, whereas, the Group 2 cases, the interpolation is alleged even before the first scanning.

4. The process of the examination is multiple choice questions numbering 200 on the basis of options to be given in the OMR answer book. A candidate is required to darken a circle of a correct answer with black ball pen. The process of preparation of the result is that OMR answer sheets is scanned in OMR scanning machine which generates the data file with extension (.DAT). In the next step, such. DAT file is converted into. DBF file for further use in the computer programmes. The process of manipulation in the present cases is at two stages, firstly before scanning the answer books when the officers and officials of the Vyapam facilitated interpolation in the answer sheets so that candidate gets enough marks for admission to a professional institute. Secondly, the interpolations were carried out after first scanning was done and after manipulation, the scanning was done second time.

5. The Vyapam has annulled the examination result of 19 candidates on account of use of unfair means vide two separate orders dated 31-12-2014. The first Group of cases is where the OMR Answer sheets have been scanned twice. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from W.P. No. 6772/2015 in re