Sri Shanthamurthy Vs. State of Karnataka by Its Secretary for Higher Education, Bangalore and Another - Court Judgment

B.S. Patil, J:

1. In these writ petitions, petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not evaluating the answer papers of the Common Entrance Test examination taken by them on 27.11.2011.

2. Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. They have completed the required training and are also possessing B.A. Degree. The Karnataka State Open University had conducted Common Entrance Test examination for selecting the candidates for the purpose of pursuing B.Ed. course. Petitioners being duly qualified appeared for the examination. Their results are not announced on the ground that they failed to answer all the questions in the said examination. In these circumstances, petitioners have approached this Court challenging the action of the respondent-University.

3. In fact, in W.P.No.1189/2011, petitioner therein is communicated with the decision of the University vide communication dated 20.12.2011 stating that as he had not answered all the questions his answer paper had not been evaluated, as the University had taken a decision that to case where the students had failed to answer all the questions, their answer papers should not be evaluated. In view of this strange decision taken by the University and having been prejudicially affected by the same, petitioners have approached this Court seeking appropriate direction to evaluate the papers and to enlist their names in the selection list for the B.Ed. course.

4. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 having secured instructions in the matter submits that the respondents have no difficulty in evaluating the answer papers of the petitioners and assigning them appropriate ranking that they are entitled. He further submits that the decision not to evaluate the answer papers of such of the students who had not answered all the questions has been taken so as to discourage malpractice resorted to by the candidates and on account of the had experience the University had in this regard in the past.

5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on consideration of the materials on record. I find that the decision taken by the respondent-University not to evaluate the answer papers of the candidates who have not answered all the questions is not supported by any rule. As is apparent from the brochure pertaining to B.Ed. programme for the year 2011-12, no such condition is incorporated in the instructions contained in the brochure stating that the candidate concerned has to answer all the questions, failing which his answer papers would not be evaluated. Even in the model OMR sheet which is enclosed to the brochure, instructions contained do not suggest that the candidate shall have to answer all the questions otherwise his/her answer paper would not be evaluated. In the absence of the same, there was absolutely no justification for the University to incorporate such condition in the OMR sheet while issuing the same in the examination hall. Noticing this anomaly, the respondents have rightly come up before this Court submitting that they are prepared toe valuate the answer papers of the petitioners and assign them appropriate ranking.

6. In view of the above submission, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent-University to carry out the evaluation of the answer papers of the petitioners which are not so far evaluated and assign them appropriate ranking according to their merit. Whereupon the respondents shall consider the petitioners for selection on merit in accordance with law. It is made clear that this exercise has to be done by the University in respect of all the students whose answer papers have not been evaluated on the ground that they had not answered all the questions, even though some of them have not approached this Court.