The learned Advocate General suggested a third course also.
According to him, after deleting the above 40 erroneous questions, total number
of marks may be reduced to 110 and the correct 110 questions may be valued.
This action, in my considered opinion, will not serve the purpose. The
prospectus states that the question paper is for 150 marks. It cannot be
reduced to 110, because it will be against the prospectus. Assuming that this
Court could permit the said course in exercise of its equity jurisdiction, even
then, as I have already pointed out, this will only result in injustice to the
meritorious candidates. This again can be illustrated in the following manner.
There are two candidates who answered 'A' series questions. The first
candidate answered 10 questions other than the erroneous questions and 40
questions which are under dispute. Thus he has secured 50 marks.
The second candidate has answered 25 questions other than the questions
under dispute. He has offered no answer or incorrect answers for the 40
questions under dispute. Thus he has secured only 25 marks.
Now, if the above method suggested by the learned Advocate General is adopted,
the 1st candidate will lose 40 marks and thus will get only 10 marks and the
second candidate will retain 25 marks. Thus, in respect of two candidates who
answered 'A' series question paper, a meritorious candidate is pushed back and
the non-meritorious candidate goes to the top. Therefore, this method also will
not create a common platform. This is because the incorrect question papers were
not distributed to all the candidates as had happened in the examinations dealt
with in the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra. Therefore,
this course also is not possible to be adopted