1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI …. L.P.A. No. 341 of 20 16 …. Rajshree Palli, daughter of Sri Prabhash Chandra Sinha, resident of Flat No.303-B, Ganpat Palace, Ganpat Nagar, Bahu Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Chutia, Town & District Ranchi (Jharkhand) ..... Appellant -Versus- 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Principal Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, having its Office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O.& P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi 3.Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (JCECEB), having its office at Science and Technology Campus, Sirkha Toli, Namkum, Tupudana Road, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District-Ranchi-834010 (Jharkhand) 4.Principal-cum—Central Superintendent, Gossner College, Club Road, P.O. & P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) ….. Respondents …. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, S.Singh, Advocates For the Resp.-State : M/s R.R.Mishra, G.P.--II Arbind Kumar, JC to GP-II For the Resp.-JCECEB : Mr. A.K. Mehta, A.K.Sinha, Advocates ----- 05/ 22 nd August, 2016 Per Shree Chandrashekhar, J.: Aggrieved of order dated 18.07.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No.3150 of 2016, whereby the writ petition seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities to award 28 marks in addition to the total marks secured by the appellant-writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) was dismissed, the instant Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred. The other prayers made in the writ petition are, in fact, for rectifying the illegality conducted in JCECEB examination, which are also inter-linked with the prayer for awarding additional 28 marks to the petitioner.
2. The admitted position is that the question booklet supplied to the petitioner comprising Physics and Chemistry papers contained as many as 28 2. repeat questions, which was on account of missing pages in the question booklet and in place of the missing pages few pages with the same questions were tagged therein. The plea taken by the respondent- Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board before the Writ Court was that the candidates who complained of defective question booklets, within the prescribed time, were supplied proper set of question booklets. The aforesaid stand was taken by the respondent- Controller of Examination on the basis of letter dated 23.06.2016 sent by the Center Superintendent, Gossner College, Ranchi, from where the petitioner appeared in the examination.
3. Referring to clause-4 of general instructions contained in the question booklet and the averments in paragraph-13 of the writ petition, the writ petition was dismissed.
4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even assuming that the petitioner did not raise the grievance to the defective question booklet within the prescribed limit of 10 minutes of the start of the examination, on admitted facts, the petitioner cannot be deprived of full marks for 28 missing questions in the question booklet which was supplied to her. Relying on decision in Vikas Pratap Singh & Ors vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors, reported in (2013) 14 SCC494 the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for award of 28 marks for the missing questions in the question booklet supplied to her.
5. The respondent has taken a plea that the entire examination process were held as per the schedule and deadline fixed by the Medical Council of India which were approved by the Supreme Court. The results for JCECEB have already been published and first counselling has also been conducted. To a pointing query of the Court, Mr. A.K. Mehta, the learned 3. counsel appearing for the respondent-JCECEB made a statement at the Bar that in terms of the guidelines 10% extra question booklets are supplied to each center to meet such eventuality. There were about 700 candidates who appeared in the examination from Gossner College, Ranchi and only 11 candidates had made a grievance in respect of defective question booklets and their question booklets were duly replaced by the correct ones, in presence of the Magistrate. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is submitted that, had the petitioner made a complaint she also would have been provided a correct question booklet.
6. We find that the stand taken by the respondent is corroborated by the representation submitted by the petitioner on 13.06.2016. In her representation, vide annexure-6 to the Letters Patent Appeal, the petitioner has nowhere stated that she raised a grievance about the defective question booklet. The stand taken by the petitioner in paragraph-13 of the writ petition is contradicted by her representation submitted on 13.06.2016. The examination was held on 12.06.2016. In such circumstances, if the plea raised by the petitioner that even if she did not make a complaint about defective question booklet still she is entitled for 28 marks is accepted, it would be highly inequitable to other candidates who appeared in the examination and made to the merit list. Whether the petitioner would have opted for correct answers for all 28 missing questions or not, is an issue in the realm of speculation. In an examination in which large number of candidates have appeared, however, the discrepancy is found in only few question booklets; only one candidate has come to the Court, the Court must not speculate on the merit of the aggrieved candidate. In a situation like this, the remedial measures adopted by the authority present at the spot should be accepted, if it is not arbitrary. Procedure which has been followed in the present case by the Centre 4. Superintendent found approval of the Writ Court. Considering the peculiar situation presented by the petitioner, we are of the opinion that no straight-jacket formula can be evolved for remedying the situation. If her plea is accepted, it may present manifold problems in future. Grant of full marks to the petitioner, on accepting her plea that in any event she is entitled for full marks for 28 questions which were missing from the question booklet, would amount to doing violence to the very essence of competition. May be, it would encourage others also not to make complaint at all, if he/she is faced with a similar situation. The plea taken by the petitioner that she has scored better in Biology paper and in all probability she would have scored in Physics and Chemistry papers also, in proportion to her score in the Biology paper, is neither here nor there and, in fact, is not borne from marks obtained by her in 39 questions in Physics and 33 questions in Chemistry. The decision in Vikas Pratap Singh case (supra) also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner. In the said case for 8 incorrect questions, marks was awarded on pro-rata basis to all the candidates on re-evaluation and thus, the deserving candidates made to the merit list.
7. We find no error in the approach of the Writ Court, however, the respondent-Controller of Examination has filed an affidavit in the present proceeding stating that the petitioner would be awarded 50% marks of the repeat 28 questions in Physics and Chemistry papers. Considering the marks secured by the petitioner in Physics and Chemistry papers, we find the approach of respondent no.-3, reasonable. The learned counsel for the respondent no.-3 has submitted that this decision has been taken in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in which only one candidate has approached the Court, and therefore, it should not be treated as a precedent. We think that Mr. Mehta is justified in making this submission.
5. 8. The instant Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed, however, with liberty to respondent no.3 to take further steps in continuation to its affidavit dated 16.08.2016. ( Virender Singh, C.J.
) ( Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
) sudhir/SI