முதுநிலைப் பட்டதாரி ஆசிரியர் போட்டித் தேர்வு வழக்கு
பிழையான 40 வினாக்களை நீக்கிவிட்டு 110 வினாக்களுக்கு மதிப்பீடு செய்வது
அல்லது பிழையான 40 வினாக்களுக்கும் 40 மதிப்பெண்களை அனைவருக்கும் வழங்குவது . அல்லது 110 வினாக்களுக்கு பெற்ற மதிப்பெண்களை 150 க்கு கணக்கிடுவது என்று . டி .ஆர். பி யின். 3 வகையான மதிப்பிட்டு முறைகளை அனைத்தையும் நிராகரித்த நீதிபதி தீர்ப்பின் சில பத்திகள்
17.During the course of the hearing, this Court made every endeavour
to find a course which would comparatively result in minimum hardship to the
candidates. The learned Advocate General submitted that after deleting the above
40 questions, the rest of the 110 questions would be valued and for every
candidate 40 marks would be given as grace marks as against the 40 questions
deleted and thus, the total number of marks will still be maintained at 150.
This course is not agreeable to this Court, because, this will certainly
materially and drastically affect the results. This will pave way for
meritorious candidates to sink in the sea of confusion. This can be illustrated
in the following manner.
There are two candidates who have answered 'A' series question paper. The
first candidate has answered 40 questions, other than the questions which are
now under dispute. He has also answered all the 40 questions under dispute,
rightly. Thus, he has secured 80 marks.
The second candidate has similarly answered 50 questions, other than the
questions under dispute. So far as the 40 questions which are under dispute, he
has not answered correctly. Thus he has secured only 50 marks.
If by following the process suggested by the learned Advocate General if
40 questions under dispute are omitted, then as per the illustration, the first
candidate will maintain the same 80 marks; whereas the second candidate will now
get 40 grace marks, thus making the total 90.
This illustration will squarely demonstrate as to how a candidate who had
originally secured 50 marks will now rise upto 90 and compete with the candidate
who has secured 80 marks. Thus, this less meritorious candidate will get
selected and the meritorious candidate will not.
18.If wrong questions are negligible, in my considered opinion, the
above process may not materially affect the outcome, though it will cause
minimum imbalance. But, here, in this case, almost 1/3rd of the questions are
wrong and, therefore, if the above method suggested by the learned Advocate
General is followed, it will surely cause prejudice to the meritorious
candidates and therefore this course cannot be followed.
19.The second method suggested by the learned Advocate General is
that after deleting 40 questions, 40 marks equivalent to the said 40 omitted
questions shall be equally distributed to the remaining questions on pro-rata
basis. For this purpose, the learned Advocate General placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vikas Pratap Singh and Others vs.
State of Chhattisgar and Others in Civil Appeal Nos.5318-5319 of 2013, date
09.07.2013. In that case, before the Hon'ble supreme Court, it was found that 8
questions were incorrect and model answers for valuation of answer scripts to
another 7 questions of the same paper were incorrect. So far as the wrong
answer key is concerned, there can be no difficulty in correcting errors with
the help of experts and ordering for re-valuation based on the correct key
answers. In the said judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, so far as 8 key
answers relating to 8 questions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered for
revaluation based on the correct key answers. So far as the incorrect questions
numbering 7 are concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed for deletion of
such incorrect questions and in the consequence pro-rata distribution of marks
allocated to them.
20.It was only relying on the said rule, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
directed deletion of 7 incorrect questions and ordered distribution of pro-rata
marks. The learned Advocate General would submit that though there is no such
clause for allotment of pro-rata marks, indicated in the prospectus in the
instant case, still, this Court, with a view to do justice to the parties, can,
in its equity jurisdiction, order for such distribution of pro-rata marks.
Regarding this submission, I have difficulty to agree. Apart from there being
no such rule or clause in the prospectus for allotment of pro-rata marks after
deleting wrong questions, there is yet another distinguishing factor. In the
case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the questions were incorrect in respect
of all the candidates who appeared in the examination. It is not as if these 7
questions were incorrect only in respect of a section of the candidates, as it
has happened in the instant case. Apart from that, in that case, the incorrect
questions were negligible in numbers; whereas in the case on hand, the incorrect
questions forms almost 1/3rd of the total number of questions. As I have
already pointed out, if pro-rata marks are allotted, after deleting the above 40
questions, this will materially affect the candidates who had appeared with 'A'
'C' and 'D' series question papers. As I have already demonstrated, the
candidates who had answered these 40 questions or some of the questions
correctly will be deprived of the marks for the correct answers. Thus, the
candidates who neither answered these questions nor incorrectly answered will be
benefited by getting pro-rata marks.
25.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.
கருத்துகள் இல்லை:
கருத்துரையிடுக