Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 17338
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
SINDHU B.S – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C)/9359/2022
MANU S., ASG SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC SRI.NIRMAL S, SC
Candidates may challenge examination processes if discrepancies arise that hinder their ability to perform, even if they did not object in real-time.
Headnote:
Examination - Writ Petition - UGC-NET - Sections unspecified - The court emphasized the importance of allowing candidates to challenge discrepancies in examination papers, ruling that the petitioners’ representation must be addressed expeditiously by the competent authority, despite earlier procedural objections raised.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners alleged discrepancies in the UGC-NET examination, including being given bilingual papers despite opting for English, unclear diagrams, and inconsistencies between English and Hindi versions, leading to their disqualification.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the petitioners' claims, particularly the issues with bilingual question papers and variations in question content, asserting the need for an inquiry into their representation.
Issues: Whether the petitioners could challenge the examination results based on alleged systemic discrepancies and whether their representation should be considered.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the petitioners were justified in submitting their representation due to procedural challenges they faced during the examination, which impeded their ability to object.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, directing the competent authority to consider the representation and resolve the complaints within three months.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners appeared for the University Grants Commission - National Eligibility Test (UGC-NET), in the cycle between December, 2020 and June 2021, in the subject 'Computer Science and Applications'. They allege that there were various issues with respect to the examination, starting with the fact that all of them were given bilingual question papers, even though they had opted for the medium of English; that the diagrams attached to the questions were extremely enlarged, blurred, leaving no option to zoom out to have a full and clear view; that the entire interface was extremely slow consuming the major share of the time allotted and that there were various discrepancies with respect to the answers between the English and the Hindi version in the question papers.
2. The petitioners have pointed out specific instances of such in Exts.P3 & P4, P5 & P6, P7 & P8, P9, P10 & P11, P12, P13 & P14 and say that because of these, they have been declared unfit, as is evident from Exts.P15, P16, P16(a) and P16(b). They say that, therefore, they had no other option but to prefer Ext.P17 complaint before respondents 2 and 3 but allege that nothing has been done by them until now.
3. The afore submissions of Sri.R.Sanjith – learned counsel for the petitioners were, however, controverted by Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy – learned standing counsel for the University Grant Commission (UGC), saying that his client has no role to play in the controversy projected, since the examination was conducted by the third respondent – National Testing Agency. He then pointed out that even though the petitioners have qualified the NET, they were found ineligible to be Junior Research Fellow (JRF); but that they have an option to take part in the next examination, which happens after three months.
4. Sri.S.Nirmal – learned counsel appearing for the third respondent – National Testing Agency, submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioners ought to have challenged each of the question which they found to be objectionable or incorrect during the time of examination itself and that since they have not done so, but have relied upon certain inputs thereafter obtained by them, they cannot be allowed to assail the results in the manner as they now attempt to do. He pointed out that the allegations of the petitioner are vague and that they are substantiating it on the basis of certain newspaper reports, which cannot be taken as being the standard in such matters.
5. However, to a pointed question from this Court, Sri.S.Nirmal submitted that if this Court is inclined to only direct the second respondent to take up Ext.P17 representation of the petitioners, adverting to their specific complaints as are projected in the other documents produced along with this writ petition, the same can be done, after affording them an opportunity of being heard - either physically or through an online platform.
6. I have evaluated the afore rival submissions on the touch stone of the various materials on record.
7. I must say upfront that I cannot find favour with the submissions of Sri.S.Nirmal that the petitioners could not have maintained Ext.P17 representation before the third respondent, without having challenged each of the questions which they found to be objectionable or ambiguous at the time of examination itself. The instances pointed out by the petitioners are so many, particularly that they were all given bilingual question papers even though they had applied for the medium of English and that answers to most of the questions were different in the English version, in comparison to the Hindi version. These aspects certainly could not have been objected to by the petitioners at the time when the examination were going on; and had they done so, obviously they would not have been even able to attempt it in any manner whatsoever, going by the large number of instances pointed out by them.
8. In such perspective, I am certain that the petitioners are
