ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

                                       Shantanu Singh

                                              Vs.

                                         State of U.P

                     Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21479 of 1992

                                    (Vijay Bahuguna, J.)

                                         29.09.1992

                                           ORDER

Vijay Bahuguna, J.

1. The petitioner challenges the validity of the 1992 Post Graduate Medical
Entrance Examination for filling up M.D./M.S. seats in all the seven Medical
Colleges of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

2. For the Post Graduate Medical Examinations of 1992 the petitioner was one
of the candidates, who appeared in the Examination held on 11th of January
1992 and was allotted Roll No. 4181 and secured 748 marks out of 3000. The
petitioner has challenged the fairness and validity of the examination and its
subsequent result on the following grounds :

       1. That 49 questions were leaked out prior to the examination.

       2. That securing 50% marks in the PG MEE was neither a prevailing
       practice in the State of U.P. before the commencement of the competitive
       test nor this 50% bar was imposed by the Supreme Court while
       introducing residency scheme on the basis of the recommendation of the
       Medical Council of India which was approved and accepted by the State
       of U. P. few years back and as such 50% criterion is arbitrary, illegal and
       against statutory norms.
       3. That 15 questions mentioned in paragraph 19 of the writ petition and
       the supplementary affidavit had multiple correct answers as a result of
       which marking was not proper.
3. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged and I have heard
learned counsel for parties and have also perused the material on the record of
the case.

4. The petitioner has failed to prove that the examination papers were leaked out
and there is nothing on record to substantiate the plea of the petitioner. In the
counter-affidavit a specific denial has been made and in the absence of any
material on record it is not possible to uphold the allegation made in the writ
petition that papers were leaked out as a result of which the examinations were
not conducted fairly.

5. With regard to the criterion of 50% qualifying marks the case of the
petitioner will be covered by the recent decision of the Supreme Court rendered
in Writ petitions Nos. 451, 454, 525 and 545 of 1992 Dr. Indu Kant v. State of
U. P.1 The Appex Court has upheld the validity of the 50% criterion for
qualifying in the test, but has further given a direction to fill in the vacant seats
of the 1992 academic session strictly in accordance with the merit in the
entrance examination according to the combined merit list of the entire State of
Uttar Pradesh. The court has relaxed the requirement of the minimum marks to
such extent which may meet the necessity of maintaining academic standards
for admission to Post Graduate Course as well as the regulations prescribed by
the Medical Council of India in this regard. As a result of the decision of the
apex Court if seats are vacant then the candidates who have secured less than
50% qualifying marks would be eligible for being admitted strictly on the basis
of marks secured in the Entrance Examination.

6. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that 15 questions had dual
correct answers and as such the marking of the question papers was not fair and
that has caused prejudice to the candidates who attempted the said questions.

7. In the supplementary counter affidavit sworn by Brij Pal Das Mehrotra,
Deputy Registrar (Administration) Lucknow University, it was stated in
paragraph 4 that after the examinations were over in order to ensure that no
mistake or discrepancy occurred in the question-response, particularly the most
appropriate response that formed the key answer, senior teachers in Medical
sciences were requested to go through the question booklet and the key
answers. They were directed to examine the discrepancies', if any, with the key
answer.

8. A committee was constituted with the Pro-Vice-Chancellor and necessary
changes were made in the 'key answer sheet' which formed the basis for
computer based evaluation of the answer sheets of the candidates and it was
ensured that no candidate was put to any disadvantage in award of marks
because of any discrepancy/ambiguity or duplicity of the response causing
disadvantage on this account. It was stated that only 6 questions were
ambiguous and contained more than one correct answer and as such full 10
marks were awarded in these questions and no negative marking was done. In
para 3 of supplementary counter affidavit of Brij Pal Das Mehrotra and it has
specifically been stated that only 6 questions where there was ambiguity in the
question or duplicity in answers and as such full 10 marks were awarded in
these questions.

9. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 12-8-1992-3 members of the
committee appeared in person and in presence of the counsel for the petitioner
explained that after the examinations the Review Committee, which consisted
of experts re-examined the question papers and found that only 6 questions had
duplicity in answers and as such a direction was issued by the Committee and
the Registrar of the Lucknow University that no negative marking should be
done and that full 10 marks should be awarded.

10. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit and the supplementary counter-
affidavit, as also by the Experts who were in this Court, that out of 8 questions
referred to in paragraph 19 of the writ petition only 6 questions in different
sciences had duel correct answers and for them no negative marking was done.

11. In proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution it is not possible for
this court to further probe into the matter and on the basis of affidavits and
documents on record it has not been established that more than 6 questions had
dual correct answers resulting in any disadvantage to the candidates who
attempted the said questions. The University has directed that no negative
marking on the disputed 6 questions should be done and as such no prejudice
has been caused to the students who appeared in the examination. It is
noteworthy that the University suo motu examined this aspect after the
examinations were over and constituted a Committee of Experts to ensure that
the students did not suffer on this score.

12. For the reasons given above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.

Cases Referred.

1. (1992) 4 JT 581