Judgment:
A.A. Kumbhakoni, J.
1. Gone are those good old days when the success at examinations used to be measured by 'the class' with which students used to clear the examinations. One use to feel proud to have cleared the examination' in First Class' rather than Second Class or Third Class.
With the increase in the competition started an era where such success was being measured not in terms of 'ju st Class' as aforesaid but in terms of percentage of marks secured at the examinations, such as 58%, 63%, 72% etc. In this era started an additional concept of passing an examination in First Class ' with Distinction', meaning thereby passing the examination with more than 70% marks.
Immense increase in the intensity of the competition, virtually 'cutthroat', for seeking admission to professional courses, has landed us in an era where the success in the examination is counted in terms of actual number of marks, rather than just 'a class' or ' just percentage', secured at a competitive examination. This is principally because one mark here and there, less or more, you either get or lose an admission to a professional course, not necessarily just Medical or Engineering.
A close scrutiny of the merit list especially drawn for Medical or engineering courses will demonstrate that interse merit position therein is granted by applying a ' tiebreaker rule' amongst several students (who are some times more than couple of hundreds or so) who have secured identical marks in all the three subjects for which a competitive examination is held. These subjects being Physics, Chemistry, Biology for Medical and Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics for Engineering. Several students secure identical marks in each of these subjects and then for deciding their interse merit position even the criteria of actual marks obtained at such examinations are found not enough and recourse is then taken by the examiners to a fortuitous circumstance - the date of birth.
With the competition becoming further fierce, we have no doubt that soon we will enter an era where even a fraction of mark may prove fatal for somebody losing only and only 'a chance' or getting just 'a n opportunity'; to just learn or just educate himself/herself. One really feels very sympathetic for the new generation.
2. As a natural fall out of such competition amongst the students to secure more and more marks, the students cannot be faulted for ' leaving no stone unturned' to even get a single mark, if possible, in addition to what they have already got. One never knows, this single mark may change the entire career and consequently the life as also future of that student, if not his/her family.
3. As far back as in 1991 in the Judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Ku. Nilofar Insaf v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. reported in : [1991]3SCR429 , the Supreme Court observed thus:
Getting an admission into a professional course has become so difficult and competitive of late that litigation instituted by disappointed candidates has become a regular feature. This appeal, arising out of such a context, throws up for consideration certain aspects which call for a difficult exercise in balancing equities. We, therefore, proceed to discuss the facts and issues at some length.
If this is what the Supreme Court felt in 1991, after 17 years i.e. in mid 2008, it is no wonder that the courts are flooded with litigations dealing with competitive examinations involving very many delicate issues relating to such examinations, not only alleging irregularities in the conduct of such examinations but also as to the method and manner of evaluation of answer papers, conduct of counseling, allotment of seats, so forth and so on, not to mention the vexed issues of reservations. This group of petitions is one of such kind.
4. These petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who are examinees of a Common Entrance Test conducted by the respondent, State of Maharashtra for drawing up a merit list to conduct admissions to Health Science, Engineering etc. professional courses. The petitioners are inspired by a fond hope that ultimately this Court may end up in awarding few additional marks to them which may at the end of the day, enable them to get in to a professional college of their choice. As issues relating to the careers of future citizens of this country are involved in these matters, with the consent of all the parties, we have taken up these matters for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
5. Hence, Rule in all the petitions. Rules made returnable forthwith. Heard for final disposal.
6. As we have heard all these petitioners together, we will collectively deal with their cases, arguments advanced by the learned Counsels and our conclusions in that regard, instead of individually and separately dealing with each of them.
7. The Respondents conducted MHTCET2008, Maharashtra State Level Common Entrance Test (hereinafter referred to as ' CET' for the sake of brevity) on 8.5.2008 across various Centers throughout the State. As many as 2,03,256 candidates from 35 Districts appeared at this examination. It is only the handful of such candidates, i.e. 5+16+1 ( total 22 ) have approached this Court by way of these petitions seeking various reliefs, which can be summarised as under:
(1) Paper of the petitioner (only one petitioner) be checked manually by holding even partially marked circle as correct answer ;
(2) Direction that additional compensatory marks proportionate to the loss of time (in one case 10 minuets and in another case 20 minutes) be awarded ;
(3) Direction that the entire CET of all the students all over the State be conducted afresh.
8. The contentions raised in all the aforesaid three petitions are similar in nature, though specifics thereof slightly vary from each other. These particulars in any case are not going to make any difference to the ultimate conclusions that we may draw at the end of this Judgment and therefore without going into the specifics, we may reproduce hereunder the allegation in general made in these petitions.
9. The contentions of the Petitioners are as under:
CET Examination comprised of only four subjects, namely, Physical, Chemistry, Biology and Mathematics. The subjects of Physical and Chemistry are compulsory whereas that of Biology and Mathematics are optional, in the sense that a student may have either Biology or Mathematics or both.
The examination was divided into three parts. First part comprised of the common answer paper to be written in 90 minutes for both compulsory subjects of Physics and Chemistry. Second part related to the paper of Biology. The third part related to the paper of Mathematics.
The Schedule in terms of actual timings so set out in the Information Brochure in nutshell was as under:
9.30 a.m. Entry in the Hall
9.50 a.m. Distribution of answer sheets.
9.55 a.m. Distribution of question booklets(Physics and Chemistry)
10.00 a.m. Examination commences
11.20 a.m. Warning Bell
11.30 a.m. Part I concludes.
The students appearing for Biology Examination were instructed to continue to sit in the Examination Hall, whereas those who were not appearing for Biology Examination were instructed to leave the Examination Campus.
11.35 a.m. Distribution of question booklets (Biology)
11.40 a.m. Examination commences
01.00 p.m. Warning bell
01.10 p.m. Conclusion of Part II.
All the students were instructed to leave the Examination Hall after submitting the question booklets and the answer sheets.
02.30 p.m. Entry in the Examination Hall
02.50 p.m. Distribution of Answer sheets
02.55 p.m. Distribution of question booklets (Mathematics)
03.00 p.m. Examination commences
04.20 p.m. Warning bell
04.30 p.m. Part III concludes
10. The grievances of the petitioners are that at the time of actual conduct of the examination, either the papers were distributed with delay ranging from 10 to 20 minutes or that the answer sheets were collected early by 10 to 20 minutes. The thrust of the case of the petitioners is that adequate time, as contemplated by the aforesaid Schedule, was not provided to them for answering the question papers. Supervisors entrusted with the job of distribution and collecting of question papers and/or answer papers caused delay in distributing the question and/or answer papers or prematurely collected the papers. Such misconduct of the supervisors has adversely affected the petitioners in as much as they could not get full prescribed time at their disposal for answering the question papers. In this regard it was emphasized that, taking into consideration the total number of questions to be answered as against the time provided for answering them, each question was required to be answered in exact 54 seconds and therefore every second, let alone every minute, was crucial. It is contended that the Supervisors ought to have compensated the petitioners by granting them additional time to complete the answerpapers for the alleged loss of the time of the petitioners on account of strict nonobservance of Schedule by the Supervisors in distribution and collection of questions/answer papers.
11. The Respondents have filed an affidavit in each case vehemently denying these allegations made by the petitioners. It is contended that 1939 students from the same blocks where the petitioners had appeared for the examination, in issue, did not make any grievance at all about the conduct of the examination. It is contended that the complaints made by the petitioners were thoroughly investigated in as much as the same were forwarded to the respective Collectors and/or Resident Deputy Collectors and/or Special Center In charge persons, as the examinations were conducted under their supervisions. It is submitted that thorough investigation has been carried out by the responsible very highly placed Revenue Officers who were in charge of the entire process of conduct of the examination. It is submitted that the reports in that regard have been received by the Competent Authority who conducted the examination and that these reports do not at all substantiate any allegation made by any of the petitioners herein.
12. It is pertinent to note that these affidavits candidly disclose and admit that only in one room bearing No. 117 of Ramnarayan Ruia College, Matunga, Mumbai, disturbance did occur on account of sudden blow of the strong wind resulting into scattering of papers ( examination material) in the class room that were required to be gathered immediately. Obviously time was wasted in this exercise. This loss of time was compensated immediately at that time itself by awarding an equivalent additional/extra time to all the students sitting in the aforesaid Room No. 117. Thus, the affidavit tries to demonstrates that the Authorities were live and sensitive to the occurrence of any such problems and that whenever and whereever it did occur, they have taken prompt action in compensating the students by awarding them additional/extra time, that too then and there only.
13. The affidavit aforesaid of the respondents emphasizes the fact that the conduct of the CET in issue was planned and executed very meticulously/methodically. It is contended in paragraph 5 as under: ' 5. With reference to paras 7 to 11 of the petition, it is respectfully submitted that CET Examination is planned very meticulously and conducted methodically and with all sincerity:
(a) For the smooth conduct of the CET Examination, the Collector of the district is made the Chairperson of the Committee and other members being RDC, Superintendent of Police, Education officer and Liaison Officer of the Director of medical Education and Research;
(b) The RDC of the district is the Center In charge for all the district Centers. He appoints in consultation with the Collector, the subcenter In charge and others;
(c) All staff appointed for conduct of examination are imparted training required for the conduct of the examination. This mandatory training is given twice prior to the date of examination.
(d) specifically the timings of the bell and the number of tolls to be given at a particular time. This schedule of ringing the bell is given in the booklet of training and a copy is given to every invigilator, supervisor and all supporting staff and the same is also displayed at the examination center for information; time for every student. Hence due importance is given to the distribution and collection of papers during the training to the staff with the help of audio visual aids. The pertinent details are circulated to every candidate through the brochures.
(f) Students / parents are expected to register their grievances, if any, immediately after the conduct of examination, with the subcenter In charge.
(g) The cognisance of a complaint is taken by the sub center in charge who enquirers immediately into the details and gets a report prepared through the invigilators and supervisors; he submits his report along with all the examination material to the RDC of the district.
(h) It is respectfully submitted that the Department of Medical Education & Drugs, Mantralaya, Mumbai appoints atleast one observer for each district; the number of observers can be more than one depending on the number of examination subcenters. The observers are required to assess the prevailing conditions at the examination subcenters in respect of light, ventilation, safety etc. They report to the district places one day prior to the examination and ensure the above facts as well as verify that the seat numbers are properly allocated to each candidate. He is also required to observe on the day of examination, the smooth conduct of examination and in the event of anything going wrong, reports it to the State level authority. These observers directly authorities at different intervals, on a day prior to the examination as well as on the day of the examination.
14. When the matter was heard initially, the respondents were directed to file an affidavit in pursuance of which the aforesaid affidavit was filed. After going through the affidavit, the petitioners made a grievance that the same was not accompanied by the inquiryreports relied by the Respondents in their affidavit. So we orally directed the counsel of the Respondents to give to the counsels appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, xerox copies of the reports relied upon by the respondents for coming to the conclusion that the grievance of the petitioners were without any substance. Accordingly xerox copies of the relevant documents were submitted not only to this Court but also copies thereof were given to the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners. After receiving these documents, the learned Counsels appearing for the petitioners were granted time by this Court to go through the same and take instructions in that behalf and the matters were adjourned. On the adjourned date, we have heard all the counsels at length and reserved this judgment on 19.6.2008, which is being delivered today.
15. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners raised following contentions:
This Court should presume that the contentions raised by the students are true and correct. The inquiries held were not thorough inquiries as claimed by the Respondents in as much as none of the complainants were called for giving their versions of the incident(s) in issue. A separate reports from each of the Supervisors against whom allegations were made ought to have been called for and produced before this Court dealing with each of the allegation of the petitioners. The approach of the respondents appear to be that only because there appears to be no solution to the problem at hand, it is better to contend that there is no problem at all, in first place. The reports produced on record bear an intrinsic evidence that something was missing. There is an unfairness in the procedure that was followed, both in conducting the examination and in the conduct of the enquiry into the complaints of the petitioners, in as much as the petitioners were not given full opportunity to substantiate their case during the course of enquiry. The reports submitted on record clearly show non application of mind in as much as, stereo type responses were obtained from those who were in charge of the conduct of actual affairs of the examination. The affidavit in reply on its face value disclose facts which are far from the truth in as much as the affidavits state that the petitioners were informed vide communication dated 8.6.2008 that their complaints have no substance, whereas the CollectorinCharge had submitted a report to that effect only on 9.6.2008. It was thus submitted that the communication to the effect that the complaint of the petitioners was found to be without substance by the Collector could not have been dated 8.6.2008 (i.e. a day earlier) when the report of the Collector is 9.6.2008. Thus, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners tried to put holes into the defense of the respondents that all was well and nothing had gone wrong, much less as alleged by the petitioners.
16. Before dealing with the allegations of the petitioners and the response of the State Authorities in that regard, at the outset, we must mark the boundaries within which such grievances can be entertained by a writ court. The reason for the same are obvious. However some of them may be restated as under:
(a) In such cases the court must bear in mind that its heart cannot rule head. General sympathies shown kind heartedly to the students, by taking a lenient view in their favour are always misplaced and misdirected. Buying arguments, such as that they are 'i nnocent students' clamoring from their childhood to get into a professional college of their choice 'j ust to educate themselves', create more difficulties than they solve.
(b) If additional marks are awarded to the petitioners without any basis and/or concrete foundation, indirectly the courts would be affecting adversely those who are not before the court i.e. other students who are today in the merit list at positions higher than the petitioners. These higher merit list holders are bound to be pushed down in the merit list by pulling up the petitioners in the interse merit. In such cases the court must bear in mind the consequences of such grant of increase in the marks to the petitioners, on all those students who are not before the court and who are today placed above the petitioners in the merit list.
(c) If the grievance of the petitioners is accepted on its face value, without any concrete basis, it will amount to castigating all those who are in charge of the admission process (especially in these case the Supervisors) of failing to do their duty. Unless findings can be recorded conclusively that these Supervisors have failed to act responsibly in conducting examination strictly in accordance with the rules/regulations/procedure, no relief can be granted to the petitioners.
(d) It also cannot be overlooked that entertaining such grievances at their face value without conclusive evidence amounts to opening of pandora's box resulting into spate of such or similar allegations and consequent demand for grant of additional marks by putting blame on the Authorities conducting examination rather than basing them on the merits and performance of the students at the examinations in issue.
(e) It is humanly impossible to lay down a cent percent perfect system of examination and implement it at the gross root level in a foolproof manner. No doubt that we must aim at such a system and its implementations, but in case of such allegations one must be satisfied with a system which is nearly perfect and which was implemented as perfectly as humanly possible.
(f) There should be no place for any apparent errors/mistakes at the hands of the examination conducting body/authority as these examinations deal with future of 'i nnocent students' who have burnt mid night oil for at least three years i.e. IX std onwards and who have sacrificed best part of their childhood by being only and only with books, notebooks and teachers all throughout 24 X 7.
17. Having considered the parameters within which this Court can consider the grievance of the petitioners, we deal with the same one by one hereunder: Out of these 22 petitioners, only one petitioner from Writ Petition (L) No. 1448 of 2008 has made the aforesaid first grievance and has sought for the peculiar relief in her Petition, viz. that her answerpaper be manually checked by holding incomplete marked circles therefrom as correct answers. Consequential relief is also sought to the effect that the result of her examination be accordingly declared by taking into consideration partially marked circles as a correct answers given by her.
18. The Respondents have framed MHTCET2008 Examination Rules/Regulations, which have been published and do form part of Information Brochure supplied to each and every student. There are specific instructions set out in these rules/regulations contained in the brochure as to the method and manner of answering the questions from the question paper. For each question, four answer options are given in the question paper itself. The student has to decide which one out of the four options is the correct answer of the relevant question. Having so decided, in the answer sheet the student is required to 'c ompletely darken' the relevant answer options selected by him/her. It is most important to note that categorical instructions are given in the aforesaid Rules/Regulations contained in the brochure to the effect that such darkening is to be made 'c ompletely' with a BLACK ink ball point pen only. Examples of such ' complete darkening' are also set out in pictorial forms therein. 'Im portant Instructions - how to mark in OMR answer sheet' are specifically set out therein. Two instructions out of many given in this regard will be decisive in this case. The same reads thus :
(1) ...
(2) Mark should be dark and should completely fill the circle.
(3) ...
(4) A lightly /faintly marked / darkened circle may also be treated as a incorrect / wrong method of marking and will be rejected by the Optical Scanner.
(5) ...
(6) ...Marking of Responses:There will be four answer options for each question. The candidate will indicate his/her response to the question by darkening the appropriate circle completely with BLACK ink ball point pen.
19. After the aforesaid instructions, specific pictorial instructions are given as to how the circle should be darkened and particularly as to how it should not be done. We find that similar instructions are also given at many places in this brochure giving ' correct method' as against ' wrong method' of darkening of circles with pictorial examples thereof.
20. In view of the aforesaid categorical and specific rules/regulations/instructions, it will be impermissible to accept the prayer so made by the petitioner which clearly amount to allowing her to violate specific rules/regulations/instructions spelled out with no uncertainty or ambiguity, in breach of which she appears to have darken the circles.
21. As set out at threshold of this Judgment, it is the case of the petitioners themselves that every second and not just minute provided for filling in answer sheet was crucial for each of the student. Obviously rest of the students ( in lakhs) must have devoted and spent their valuable time in darkening completely and not just partially, each circle which they felt to be a correct answer, while filling in the answer sheets. All such students who appear for a cutthroat competitive exam have strictly adhered to and complied with the aforesaid specific instructions of completely darkening a proper circle as the correct answer option (of course according to them). By allowing the petitioner's prayer set out herein above, obviously injustice will be caused to all such students/examinees who have acted strictly according to the Rules. If everybody was to do what the petitioners have done, they would have also got more time to think about the correct answer option to be given to each question.
As explained herein above, one of the aspect which this Court is bound to bear in mind in such cases is the impact of acceptance of petitioners contention on all those who are not today before the court i.e. lakhs of other students who had appeared at the same examination and who have spent their valuable time in strictly complying with the aforesaid instructions and ' completely darkening' the relevant circles.
22. One more aspect of the matter which also needs to be considered is that if such a plea as that of the petitioners is accepted, students/examinees may create new and innovative ideas of pointing out correct answer option dehorse the specific instructions as to the method and manner of doing so, set out in the examination rules/regulations contained in the Information Brochure. This will throw the entire examination system out of the gear. Therefore the aforesaid contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted. There is a specific method and manner of checking the answer sheets viz. Scanning answersheets with that of Optical Mark Reader i.e. OMR. The answerpaper of each and every student is going to be scanned accordingly for the purpose of checking it. The petitioner cannot be given a special treatment by directing the respondents to check the answersheet of the petitioner manually. There is no reason at all to single out the petitioner for such a special treatment.
23. In view of these aspects of the matter, we cannot accept the case of the petitioner and grant any prayer made in Writ Petition (L) No. 1448 of 2008.
24 In as much as the second aspect of the matter, viz. alleged loss of 1020 minutes of valuable time of the petitioner, out of the prescribed time provided for answering the questionspapers, our observations and conclusions are as under: At the outset, we must reject the contention of the petitioners that the court should presume that the case tried to be made out by the petitioners is true and correct. Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners were unable to point any reason whatsoever as to why and how in law we can draw such a presumption. On the contrary, what we find is that as the students are likely to get few additional marks if we accept such a case tried to be made out by them, the students may be coming out with such a case. We have indicated in the very beginning of this Judgment as to how few marks here and there, less or more, a student can get or loose a seat in a professional college. The possibility is that the petitioners may be trying to get few additional marks by this method cannot be ruled out. Therefore, in our view, it will not only be unfair / improper / unjust to start with such a presumption but also it may be dangerous a path to trade on in such cases.
25. The allegation of the petitioners that the respondents have not fairly acted in considering their grievance also does not appear to be correct. As noted herein above, in the Affidavits in Replies filed on behalf of the respondents in these cases, the respondents have candidly admitted that a specific incident did occur, during the course of examination in issue at Ram Narayan Ruia College, Matunga, Mumbai, in only one room bearing No. 117. It is fairly pointed out by the respondents that though not entirely due to mistake of the concerned Supervisor, the examination material i.e. papers were blown due to strong breeze of wind resulting into scattering of these papers in the room. The affidavit shows that immediately action was taken and adequate additional/extra time was provided to all the students from this room No. 117 to compensate loss of their time that had occurred on account of aforesaid incident. In our view, this action of the respondents demonstrates that the respondents have acted very fairly in conducting the examination in issue by providing compensatory/additional/extra time wherever it was needed, to only such students whose time was lost. Obviously, the Respondents did not find any such reason and/or ground for providing any additional/extra time to the petitioners and therefore the respondents have not made such additional/extra time available to the petitioners.
26. Further contention of the petitioners is that the respondents could not have sent a reply to the petitioners bearing 8th June as the date, when the report from the Collector in regard to the complaints of the petitioners was prepared and sent on 9th June 2008. In short, the question the petitioners are raising is as to how could the respondents sent the reply to the petitioners in regard to their complaint on a day prior to the day on which the actual report of the Collector (stating that the complaint of the petitioner was without any substance) was prepared. In this regard, additional affidavit has been filed dated 19.6.2008 by Dr. Devidas Sitarampant Kulkarni, Joint Director of Medical Education and Research. By this affidavit, the respondents have clarified that the date on the intimation sent to the petitioner as 8th June was a typographical error and it ought to have been 9th June. This was obviously because the Report of the Collector itself is dated 9th June 2008. This affidavit further states that as a matter of fact the aforesaid reply is wrongly dated as 8.6.2008 instead of 9.6.2008 and that the same was actually dispatched by the respondents through R.P.A.D only on 10.6.2008. Xerox copies of the relevant documents are also annexed to the said affidavit. On perusal of the said application and the Annextures, we are satisfied that the explanation of the respondents is correct and that the contentions raised by the petitioners on the basis of the date put by the respondents on the concerned document is nothing but as tried to built a mountain out of mole. We are thus unable to accept the same.
27. In as much as the contention as to the enquirers conducted in regard to the complaints of the petitioners are concerned, our observations and conclusions are as under: These enquiries in issue are not strictly even quasi judicial enquiries. The petitioners therefore cannot find fault with the same on the ground that the petitioners were not called to give their versions at the time of conducting these enquiries. The petitioners have admittedly lodged complaints in writing giving all the requisite particulars in regard to their grievances therein. During the course of these enquiries the truth and/or veracity of these allegations/complaints have been tested/verified. We do not think that by not calling the petitioners personally for giving their versions at the time of these enquiries any prejudice is caused to the petitioners. The contention of the petitioners that other students also ought to have been called for also cannot be accepted for the very same reasons. The enquiries in issue were summary enquiries made by responsible and highly placed officials, such as the Collector of Revenue District or a Resident Dy. Collector of the Revenue District etc. These are the persons who are expected to act responsibly and sensitively. There is no reason to assume that they have not acted accordingly, especially in absence of any allegation whatsoever of malafides against any of them. Even otherwise there is no reason why they should act in a manner adversely affecting the students community at large. Moreover the respondents have produced on record copies of the statements (recorded during the course of these enquiries) of the persons who were actually involved at the grass root level in the conduct of the examination in issue. On perusal of the material brought on record by the respondents, we are satisfied that fair and reasonable enquiries have been conducted by the respondents with regard to the complaints of the petitioners and that there is no reason to doubt the fairness of such enquiries. In one of the reports, it is categorically stated that at one of the examination center in issue there were around 900 students, who had appeared at the examination and that not a single student who was present at the time of actual conduct of the examination had filed/made any complaint whatsoever, much less of the kind which the petitioners are now making. We find much substance in this observation. Had the incident occurred as contended by the petitioners surely at least some, if not all, students or their parents/representatives would have come forward to lodge a complaint on the spot then and there only. We therefore have to come to a conclusion that the allegations of the petitioners are without any substance and cannot be accepted.
28. The submissions made by the respondents in the Affidavits in Replies pointing out that all the persons involved in the admission process were trained thoroughly before actual conduct of the examination in issue also needs to be emphasised in this regard. The aforesaid submissions from the Affidavits extracted by us (by supplying emphasis on the relevant portions thereof) show that all the persons who have actually conducted the examination in issue were not only trained and/or instructed properly as to the importance of the timeschedule but also were sensitized about the strictness with which each step in the examination was to be followed by meticulously adhering to the minutetominute time schedule. The petitioners have failed to produce enough material before us and built a strong case by laying down actual foundation in its support to enable us to doubt non observance of the time table or time schedule by all concerned while conducting examination in issue.
29. If not anything else we must remind ourselves of the aforesaid parameters within which we can entertain such grievances. It is just not possible for us, with all the sympathies that we can show to the petitioners, to accept the case of the petitioners only with a view that what the petitioners have contended ' might have happened'. We cannot grant any relief to the petitioners only and only on the basis of such remote possibilities when factors showing their actual occurrence are conspicuously absent. The last prayer set out herein above of the petitioners needs to be stated only for being rejected. As set out herein above, this time 2,03,256 students from 35 Districts across the State had appeared at the examination in issue. At the behest of the only 5+1+16 students and that too only on ' may be or may not be' type of a case tried to be made out by them, it is just unthinkable for us to direct the respondents to reconduct the entire examination and make all 2,03,256 students from 35 Districts across our State to go through the same ordeal of undergoing the same examination again. We therefore are constrained to reject this claim of the petitioners seeking conduct of entire reexamination for all the candidates.
30. The aforesaid observations would have normally been enough to conclude this judgment. However, we may add few lines herein in view of the sensitivity of the issue involved in this case, which may enable the respondents in future to take care of all such grievances appropriately. The actual event of conduct of examination and that too on such a large scale at various centers through out the State where couple of lakhs of students appear simultaneously is an irreversible event. During the course of actual conduct of this examination i.e. when the examination is actually in progress, decisions have to be taken by all those who are in charge of the examination process on the spot as the situation demands. It is impossible to visualise in advance the complications that may arise and the difficulties that may be faced at the grass root level when the conduct of the actual examination is in process. If not already done, the respondents therefore need to put in place and provide for some arrangement such as a ' Grievance Redressal Committee' comprising of highly responsible officers who are sensitive to such difficulties and problems, if any, that may arise during the actual conduct of the examination. These officers need to be sensitized enough as to the importance of such examination and as to the adverse effects of any errors or mistakes that may occur at the 11th hour, particularly at the instance of persons who are to operate the 'conduct of examination system', when the examination is in progress. Such team of officers must be made aware particularly of the fact that if no remedial steps are taken immediately on the spot, it creates unnecessary and unwarranted complications at later stage of the admission process on large scale putting in jeopardy the life and career of lakhs of future citizens of this country, the innocent students. This committee members must be authorized/empowered to take on the spot decisions upon satisfaction of grievances, if any, made by the students/examinees by assessing the situation then and there only. This committee must keep and preserve written record of all such grievances/allegations and/or events and as to steps taken, if any, in that regard. Such record will certainly be useful in deciding justifiability of such grievances or actions taken in that regard at later stage. The Respondents may also consider putting in place more than one such committees with welldefined areas of the State that will be within their respective jurisdictions/authority. It is needless to mention that in the information brochure itself the details as to phone numbers/mobile numbers etc. of the office of this or these committee(s) be set out so that the examinees can before hand know as to whom should they contact for lodging their grievances, if any.
31. For the reasons set out in the judgment, the Petitions are dismissed. The Rules shall stand discharged.