Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012 28TH AGRAHAYANA 193 WA.No. 1425 of 2012 () IN WPC/10968/2012 ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.10968/2012 DATED 06 07-2012 APPELLANT : -----------------
1. DR.SAJITHA, T.C. 7/127, KOCHULLOOR JUNCTION, MDEICAL COLLEGE P.O, 695011, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2 DR. REJITHA RAMACHANDRAN,SREERAGAM, CHITTILAPPILLY P.O, THRISSUR 68001
3. DR. GAURI RAJAN,GREESHAM, 6/710/A NEAR TEMPLE THRIKKAKARA P.O ERNAKULAM 68203
4. DR. NAVEEN.D, ANJALI, EAST KALLADAP.O, KOLLAM 5 RAJINI.V, , PARAPURATH HOUSE, KINFRA PARK P.O., KORATTI THRISSUR 68030 BY ADVS.SRI.N.J.MATHEWS SRI.P.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI SMT.INDIRA RAVEENDRAN SMT.R.DEVI SHRI RESPONDENTS : ----------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRSENTED BY SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT STATESECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 69500
2. COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 69500 WA.No. 1425 of 2012 ()
3. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 69501
4. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, POCKET 14 SECTOR 8 DEARAKA PHASE, NEW DELHI 11000
5. DR. DHANIN P, S/O MR. P. PIKKEN, THULASI, THIKOODI NEAR MEETHALEPALLI, KOZHIKODE 67253
6. DR. THOMAS, VARGHESE ATTUMALLIL, S/O DR. SANJEEV V, THOMAS, 329 BAPUJI NAGAR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O THIRUVANANTAPURAM 69501
7. DR. PRIYA SOSA JAMES, D/O DR. JAMES GEROGE, KAROTT, SANTHI NAGAR SREEKARIYAM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 69501
8. DR. SONIA ABRAHAM, D/O ABRAHAM, P.V, POOVANNUMMOOTTIL KMRA 183 MUTTADA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 69502
9. DR. VISHNU J, S/O C.N. HARI, SREERANGAM, KARIPOOR MALAYINKEEZHU POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 69150
10. DR. ANEESH RAJ,S/O ANANDARAJAN.K, ANISH BHAVAN VENDER POST KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM 69150
11. DR. GAYATRI.G,D/O K.P. GOPALAKRISHNAN, ANUGRAH, AYODHYANAGAR PIRIVUSALA, CHANDRA NAGAR POST, PALAKKAD 67800
12. DR. SHAMMER P,S/O KUNHU MUHAMMED, GULSANA HOUSE, ARIYALLUR POST, MALAPPURAM 67631
13. DR. APARNA SINHA,D/O P.M. BALAMANI THANKACHI, AKV GANGALOW, DURGA LANE, CHEMPAZHANTHAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 69558
14. AFSAL ANARATH, ANARATH HOUSE, VILIAPPALLY P.O, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE 67354
15. DR. NANDU NAIR,VARSHATHEERAM SRA-M 33.MANA LANE, CONVENT ROAD II THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA 68310 WA.No. 1425 of 2012 ()
16. DR. GAYATHRI VARMA, VARSHATHEERAM SRA-M 33.MANA LANE, CONVENT ROAD II, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA 68310
17. DR. RANJIMA ABRAHAM, HOLY HEIGHTS 4 B, ERINJERI ANGADI, THRISSUR 68000
18. DR. MAYA MENON,VAISAKH, T.C 2/1459, PATTOM P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 69500
19. DR. SREENAT.N,VAIDYASALAYIL, EDAYIRKKAPPUZHA, KANGAZHA KOTTAYAM 68654
20. DR. FATHIMA FABINA.K.K, PLEASANT DALE R.S ROAD, THANOOR, MALAPPURAM 67630 . R BY ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI. K.P.DANDAPANI R4 BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, MCI R BY ADV. SRI. T.B.HOOD R BY ADV. SRI. KALEESWARAN RAJ R BY ADV. SRI THOMAS ANTONY R BY ADV. TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-10-2012, ALONG WITH WA. 1429/2012, WA. 1431/2012, WA. 1448/2012, THE COURT ON 19-12-2012 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BP MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * W.A.Nos.1425 of 2012, 1429 of 2012, 1431 of 2012 and 1448 of 2012 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of December 2012 JUDGMENT
SHAFFIQUE,J All these appeals arise out of a common judgment in WPC Nos.10816, 10968, 11315, 11757, 12062 and 14614 of 2012.
2. Writ Appeal Nos.1425 of 2012 and 1431 of 2012 are filed against the judgments in W.P.C.Nos.10968 of 2012 and 10816 of 2012 respectively by the petitioners who sought for admission to the Post Graduate Degree Courses in Medicine. W.A.Nos.1429 and 1448 of 2012 are filed by the petitioners in W.P.C.Nos.11315 of 2012 and 12062 of 2012 respectively who sought for admission to the post of Post Graduate course in various branches under the Dental Surgery.
3. The petitioners in those cases are the appellants herein. Their main grievance was that in the common entrance W.A.Nos.1425/2012, 1429/2012”
1431. 2012, 1448/2012 examination conducted by the Controller of Examinations in respect of the aforesaid Post Graduate courses, the answers given in respect of certain questions in the answer keys were wrong, which according to them, resulted in variation in the final marks obtained by the petitioners.
4. Their request was for a re-evaluation of the answer sheets and to prepare a fresh rank list after effecting the necessary corrections with reference to wrong answers given to the questions which they have pointed out. They have also narrated the number of questions for which wrong answers were provided in the answer sheet.
5. According to them, after the entrance test was conducted in 2012, the correct answer keys were not published. Therefore they were not in a position to verify whether the answers given to the questions were correct or not and despite the fact that they had doubt regarding certain answers given to questions since the answer key could not be obtained they were not in a position to challenge the conduct of examination immediately. It was, after directions issued by this Court, that the answer keys were obtained and then it was found that in W.A.Nos.1425/2012, 1429/2012”
1431. 2012, 1448/2012 respect of Post Graduate course in Medicine, there were 22 number of wrong answers to the questions and in respect of Post Graduate course in Dental Surgery, there were about 20 wrong answers.
6. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the rival arguments, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that in view of the time frame fixed by the Medical Council of India to complete the admissions within a specified time, it will not be justified on the part of the Court to reopen the entire matter, in the light of the directions issued by the Division Bench in Vinod v. State of Kerala [2012(2) KLT 683].
7. The learned Single Judge further directed respondents 1 and 2 to provide appropriate opportunity to the candidates to submit objections to key answers before the valuation is completed in order to avoid such controversies.
8. The judgment in the above cases are impugned by the candidates who are lower in rank, mainly on the ground that when substantial number of wrong answers are given to a question, it will affect the rights of the students who participated in the competitive examination and merely for the reason that W.A.Nos.1425/2012, 1429/2012”
1431. 2012, 1448/2012 the list had been finalised, it does not preclude the right of the candidates to question the process of examination which will deprive them of a valid right of competition and thereby rendering some advantage to certain persons and disadvantage to others, and thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
9. During the course of arguments, when the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants have demonstrated to us in regard to questions and answers relating to Dental course that prima facie the answers appeared to be wrong, we directed the learned Advocate General to give an opinion of experts in regard to the controversy raised in the Writ Appeals pertaining to the examinations conducted for the Medical Course and Dental course, in the light of the specific instances pointed out by the petitioners in the cases.
10. The learned Advocate General had submitted two sealed covers indicating the mistakes in the answer keys supplied with reference to the said examinations. In the report dated 03/10/2012, with reference to Post Graduate Medical course, it was mentioned that when complaints were received W.A.Nos.1425/2012, 1429/2012”
1431. 2012, 1448/2012 from candidates regarding the entrance examination, the matter was referred to experts and two questions in paper I and two questions in paper II were deleted before finalization of valuation and the results of the deleted questions were not included for valuation and the marks obtained for 148 questions in each paper have been multiplied by 150/148 to get the actual marks to award proportionate marks based on the score of the candidates in the questions considered for valuation. When a further verification was done as directed by this Court in respect of 22 questions of Post Graduate Medical entrance examination, according to the experts, in respect of 6 questions they have opined for key change and all other questions are correct. It is also stated that the said 6 questions which were suggested for key change were referred to a second panel of experts who had opined for key change in two questions. In respect of the other 4 questions they have indicated for more than one answer.
11. In respect of the Dental Entrance examination for Post Graduate Dental surgery it is indicated that one question was deleted and the marks for the remaining 199 questions have been multiplied by 200/199 before finalising the rank list. On a W.A.Nos.1425/2012, 1429/2012”
1431. 2012, 1448/2012 consideration of the 20 questions which were under challenge, the Expert Committee had opined for key change in 11 questions. When it was referred to a second panel of experts they suggested key change in 8 questions. In respect of two other questions, according to them, the official key answers are correct while in one question there are two possibilities for the correct answer.
12. After having found that there had been substantial difference in the answers given to various questions, by a further order dated 08/10/2012, we directed the respondents/authorities to evaluate the answers of the appellants with reference to the opinion of the experts only on disputed questions raised in the Writ Appeals and to submit in a sealed cover the ranking that may be secured by the appellants with the modified marks. In pursuance of the same, the learned Advocate General had submitted a report dated 29/10/2012 after reviewing the Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination and Dental Entrance Examination in respect of the petitioners and the conclusion arrived at is as under: W.A.Nos.1425/2012, 1429/2012”
1431. 2012, 1448/2012 Medical: Conclusion of the evaluation process: i. Rank positions of all candidates were moved to inferior positions after the review. ii. Rank position of Dr.Boney Baiju demoted from 841 to 898 and Dr.Naveen.D, from 788 to 798. iii. All other candidates namely Dr.Arun K.Aipe, Dr.Sajitha.N, Dr.Rejitha Raveendran, Dr.Gouri Raj and Dr.Rindu Raveendran have Disqualified (DQ) status even after the evaluation process. iv. Candidate namely Dr.Renjini.V has qualified with an inferior rank position of 952. So, the reviewed rank positions of the Appellants, in the background of opinion of experts, is only disadvantageous to the Appellants. It is worthwhile to mention that even as per the evaluation made in accordance with the opinion of experts, Appellant's rank position is moved only to inferior positions. Hence the report is submitted for the kind consideration of this Hon'ble Court." W.A.Nos.1425/2012, 1429/2012”
1431. 2012, 1448/2012 Dental: Conclusion of the evaluation process: "i. The Rank positions of the candidates Dr.Sufana Latheef, Ameera Mol P.K and Dr.Sameer Cherote were demoted to disadvantaged positions. The rank of Sufana Latheef has been demoted from 62 to 64 while rank of Ameera Mol P.K was demoted from 280 to 317. Similarly, the candidate Sameer Cherote had demoted from 301 to 343 after review. ii. The revised rank of Dr.Mumthas C.V has been changed from 149 to 136, which is still in an inferior position to get any allotment in PG Dental Entrance Examination." So, the reviewed rank positions of the Appellants, in the background of opinion of experts, is only disadvantageous to the Appellants. It is worthwhile to mention that even as per the evaluation made in accordance with the opinion of experts, Appellant's rank position is moved only to inferior positions. Hence the report is submitted for the kind consideration of this Hon'ble Court." W.A.Nos.1425/2012, 1429/2012”
1431. 2012, 1448/2012 13. Though the findings by the expert panel had been brought to our notice by the learned Advocate General in sealed covers, having found that there would not be any change in the ranking position of the appellants, we have also permitted the appellants to have a copy of the said reports as well.
14. The main grievance of the appellants was that re- evaluation has not been done in the matter.
15. As already indicated, we have examined the matter in detail and the disputed questions were referred to two expert panels and an evaluation of the petitioners' marks were done on the basis of the report of the expert panel and having found that the petitioners cannot derive any benefit out of such re- evaluation being done at this stage, we do not think that it will be fair to proceed with the matter further.
16. In that regard, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the contentions urged by the learned counsel for appellants and learned Advocate General in this regard, we do not think that any useful purpose will be served in setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. W.A.Nos.1425/2012, 1429/2012”
1431. 2012, 1448/2012 In that view of the matter, the above writ appeals are dismissed. (sd/-) (MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE) (sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr W.A.Nos.1425/2012, 1429/2012”
1431. 2012, 1448/2012 W.A.Nos.1425/2012, 1429/2012”
1431. 2012, 1448/2012