KANPUR UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS v. SAMIR GUPTA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 73

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, R.S. PATHAK, SABYASACHI MUKHERJI

Case summary

Normally, the key~answer furnished by the paJ)er-setter and accepted by the University as correct, should 'not be allowed to be challenged. The High Court accepted their cOntention and allowed the petitions.

Judgment text

k. ANPUR UNIVERSITY AND OtHERS • v. r SAMIR GUPTA AND OTHERS September 27, 1983 [Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C. J. , R: S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ. ] Entrance Examinations to courses of siudy'-Multiplt Choice Objectivttype TeSts-Combined Pre-medical Test for admission to medical collegeS in U. P. Whether Correatness ofkey-answers to questions set in the examintition open to challenge ? The appellant-University held the "Combined Pre-Medical Test" for · admission to the seven medical colleges in U. P. during the year,1982. The pattern of examination adopted was known as·the "Mult_iple' Choice Objectivetype" test according to which a . paper containing 100 'questions with fou. r alternative answers for each question was set in each of the four subjects prescribed for the test and the candidates were asked to tick the correct answer from out of the four alternatives given.

The marking of answer-book Was done by a computer into which had be~n fed the key-answers supplied by the paper-setters. When the University pubHshed the key-answers along with the 1 result of the test, the respondents who 'had . appeared in the test and whoSe names did not figure in the ljst of successful candidates filed writ petitions contending that the key-answers published by the UnivefSity in regard to three questions Were wrong, that the answers tic}ced by them in regard to those three questions were correct and that if their ans~er-books Were reassessed correctly tliey would be entitled to be admitted to the M. B. B. S. course. The High Court accepted their cOntention and allowed the petitions. ; . Council for the University contemled that no challenge should be allow~d to be made to the correctness of a key-a·ns'wer unless, on the face of .

it, it is wrong: Dismissing the appeals, · HELD: Normally, the key~answer furnished by the paJ)er-setter and accepted by the University as correct, should 'not be allowed to be challenged. the key-answer should be assumed to be correct unless · it is proved to be wrong and it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential prqcess of reasoning or by a pro~ess of rationalisation but must be'clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of rr. en wellversed in the particular subject would regard as correct. [81 D, H, 82 A-BJ ' 74 "' SUPRllME COURT REPoRTS (1984) 1s. c. it In the instant case, the contention ·~r the University is falsified by•a large number of acknowledged text-books, which are o. eommcnly read by students in U. P. ·. Those text books leave no room for doubt that the answers given by the students are correct and· the key-answers are incorrect.

stnce the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalise the students for not gi~ing an answer which accords with the key-answer, that is to saY, With an answer which is deffionstrated to be wrong. [82 B-DJ The publication of the key-answer has unravelled an unhappy state' of , affairs· to which tbe University and the State Governn1ent must find a solution. The State Government should compile under its own auspices a text book which should be prescribed for student desirous of appearing fo~ the Combined Pre-inedi~al Test. A systeffi should be devised for moderating the keYanswers furnished bY the paper-setters. If English-- questions have to be translated. into Hindi it is not enough to·. ,appoint an expert in Hi~di language as a translator. The translator 111ust know the~ n1eaning of the scientific tenninology, and the art of translation.

In a S)'Stem of "Multiple Choice Objectivetype Test" care must be taken to see that questions having a11 ambiguous import-are not set in the papers. Whenever the attention of the University is draWn to any defect in a key-anSwer, or any ambiguity in a question set. in' the examination, Prompt and 'timely decision must be taken by the University to declare that the suspect question will be excluded from the paper and no marks. assigned to it. [81 F, 82 E, G-H, 83 ~-BJ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4092-4115 of 1983. · Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 24th February, 1983 of the . Allahabad High Court '(Lucknow Bench) in Writ Petition Nos. 4773-74/82, 4827, 5024, 5216, 5314, 5716-5717, 5724, 5816, 5817, 5818, 5819, 5821, 6029, 6067, 6069, 6102,. 6103, 6389, of 1982 & 9, 14~, 230, 277of1983. AND Civil Appeal Nos. 4068 4091of1983. .

Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 24th February, 1983 of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in Civil Mis Writ Petition Nos. 4773,4827,·5024, 5216, 5314, 5716;5717,. 5724, 5816, 5817, 5818, 5819, 5821, 6029, 6067, 6069, 6102, 6103, 6389 of 1982 and 9, 146, 230, 277 of 1983. In Civil Appeal No. 4092 - 4115 of 1983 · S. N. Kacker, Mrs. Shobha Dixit and Ku/sherstha for the Appellants. •' KANPUR UNIVERSITY v. SAMIR GUPTA (chandrachud, C. J. ) 'IS •. R. K. Garg, R. K. Jain, M. Nitin Mahaμ Pop/i, Santosh Sethi and Ms. Sangeeta Agurwal for Respondents in CA. 4092 of 1983. E. C. Aggarwala Mahavir Singh and K. K. Gupta for Respondents. ' Robin Mitra, Anil Kumar Gupta, and Brij Bhushan, for Respondents in CA. 4096 of W83. KC. Agarwala, Vijay K. Pandita and R. Satfsh for Respondents. In Civil Appeal Nos. 4068-91 of 1983 : Mrs. Shoba Dixit and Kapil Sibal for the Appellants. ·~ M. M. Kshatriya, E. c: Aggarwala, Robin Mitra, K. K. Gupta, M. B. Lal.

Anil Kumar Gupta and Brtj Bhush~n for the Jespondents. M. M. Kshatriya for Respondent No. 1. -D . Mohan Pandey for Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered CHANDRACHUD, C. J. These . appeals raise a some what awkward question : If a paper-setter commits. an error while indicating the correct answer to a question set by him, can the students who answer that question correctly be failed for the reason I that though their answer is correct, it doest not '\ccord with . the answer supplied by the paper-setter to the University as the correct- answer ? The answ - challenged. One way of achieving it is not to publish the key answer at all. If the University had not published the key answer along with the result of the test, no controversy would have arisen in this case. But that is not a correct way of looking at these matters which involve the future of hundreds of students. - who ·are aspirants for admission to professional courses. If the key ans.

wer were kept secret in this case, the remedy would. have been , worse than the disease because, so many students would have had to suffer the injustice in silence. The publication of the key answer . has unravelled an unhappy state of. affairs to which the University and the State Government must find a solution. Their sense of fairness in publishing the key answer has given them an opportunity t6 have a· closer look at the system of examinations which they conduct. What has failed is not the computer but the human system. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University, con· tended that no challenge should be allowed to be made to the correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. ' We agree that the key-answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is prove r by a process of rationali- \' sation. Itmust be clearl.

y demonstrated to be wrong, that is' to say' it must be such ·as no reasonable body of men wen:versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. The contention of the ~ University is falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged text-books, which are common1y read by students in U. P. Those . text-books leave rro room· for doubt ·that the ·answer given by the _ "4 students i. s correct and the key answer is incorrect. 1 Students whci have passed their Intermediate Board Examination are eligible to appear for the entrance Test for admission to the Medical Colleges in U. P. Certain books are prescribed for. the Intermediate Board Examination an(I such knowledge of the s11bjects as the students have is derived from what is ·cont. ained in those text-books. Those text-books support the case of the Biudents fully. If this were a case of doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred the key answer. But if the matter is beyonC! the realm of doubt, it would be unfai.

r to penalise the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer w,hich is demonstrated to be wrong. If the State Government wants to avoid a· recurrence of such lapses, it should compile under its own auspices a . text~book . which should be prescribed for students desirous of appearing for the · .. combined Pre-Medical Test. Education has mo. re than its fair share •of politics, which is the bane of our Universities. Numerous problems are bound to arise in the compilation of siich a text-book for, various • applicants will. come forward for doing the job and forces and counter-forces will wage a battle on the question as to who should be commissioned to do the work. If the State can succeed in overcoming those . difficulties,, the argument will not be open to the students that the answer contained in the text-book which is prescribed for the test is no. t the correct answer.

Secondly, a system should be devised by the State Government for . moderating the key answers furnished by the paper setters. Thirdly, if English questions . have to be translated into Hindi, it is· not enough to appoint an expert in the Hindi language as a translator. The translator must kn. ow the meaning of the scientific terminology and the art of translation. Fourthly, in a s:ystfm of 'Multiple Choice Objective-type :1:1 test', care must be taken to see that ·questions having an ambiguous imporf are·not set in the papers That· kind of system of exami- . n~tion invo\ves merely the lick-markin~ of the. correct answer. ,It - ·- - ' . , . -- - . . . . . . . . ', . . .. . KANPUR UNIV,ERSITV v: SAMIR GUPTA (Chandrach11d, C. J. ) 83 leaves no scope for reasoning or argument. The answer is 'yes'-or 'no'. . That is why the questions have to be clear and unequivocal.

Lastly, if the attention of the University ·is drawn to any defect in a key a'nswer or any ambiguity in a question s~t in the examination, prompt and timely decision must be taken by the University to declare that the suspect question will be excluded from the paper and no marks assigned to it. There was some argument before us as to the nature of the relief which can be granted to the respondents. It was contended by Smt. Dixit, who appears on behalf of the State of. U. P. , that six ofthe respondents have been already admitted to the B. D. S. Course· and, therefore, they should not now be admitted to the M. B. B. S. course, We cannot accept this submission since, those students sought admission to the Dental course only because they were not admitted· to ihe M. B. B. S. cqurse. And they were denied admission to the M. B. B. S. course wrongly. ' ( Twenty-seven students in all were concerned with these proceedings, out of whom 8 'were admitted to the B. D. S.

course, 3 · were admitted to the M. B. B. S. course last . Year itself in place of the studedts who dropped out and 5 have succeeded in getting admission this year. Omitting 8 of the respondents who h~ve been already admitted to the M. B. B. S. course, the remaining 19 shall have to be given admission as directed by the High Court. If the key answer was not wrong as it has turned out to be, they would have succeeded in getting admission. In view of the findings of the High Court, the question naturally arose as to11ow the marks were to be allotted to the respondents for the three questions answered ·by them and which were wrongly assessed by the University. The High Court has held that the respondents would be entitled to be given 3 marks for each of the questions correctly ticked by them, and in addition they would be entitled to 1 mark for those very quesiions, since 1 mark was deducted from. their total for each of the questions wrongly answered by them.

Putting it briefly, such of the respondents as are found to have attempted the three questions or any of them would be entitled. to an addition of 4 marks per question. If the answer-books are reassessed in accordance with this formula, the respondents would be entitled to be admitted to the M. B. B. S. course, about which there i~ no dispute. Accordingly, we confir~ the directions given by the High Court in regard to the reassessment of the particular questions and the admission of t! i~ respondents (o the M. B. B. S. course.. · There is one student, Miss Reeta Gupta, whose grievance is that if she is given additional marks as directed by the High Cou'rt, her place will go higher up in the merit list, as a consequence whereof she would be eligible for admission to the Medical College situated in her place of residence. · Smt. Dixit says that Miss Gupta should apply to th~ Government in 'this behalf and the Government could consider her application.

We do not think that there is any justi· fication for us to interfere with the order passed by the High Court on this score also. We understand that some petitions are pending in the High Court on these very points. . Those petitions will be disposed of by the High Court in the light of this judgment, pmvided that the petitioners therein make out a case for interference as the students in these appeals have done. We however, direct that no fresh petitions should be entertained by the High Court and, of course, none will be entertained by us hereafter on· the questions involved in. these _appeals arising out of the test . which was held in I\ 82. The new academic session is due to commence within the next few days and these questions cannot be allowed to be raised in a leisurely fashion so as to disorganise the scheme of fresh admissions. In the result, these appeals are dismissed with costs. H. L. C. Appeals dismissed. / ....