Nipun Gaur vs University Of Delhi
2012 Latest Caselaw 3642 Del

*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+             W.P.(C) No.1182/2012 and C.M. No.6721/2012


                                              Date of Decision: 31st May, 2012

IN THE MATTER OF:
NIPUN GAUR                                                    ..... Petitioner
                        Through : Mr. Abhishek Garg, Adv.


                  versus


UNIVERSITY OF DELHI                                     ..... Respondent
                        Through : Ms. Maninder Acharya, Adv.

CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for

directions to the respondent/University to produce the report of the

Committee constituted by it to enquire into the matter of incorrect answer

key of Delhi University Medical Entrance Test-2011 (in short „the DUMET-

2011‟) and to grant him admission in the MBBS Course for the year 2011 or

in the alternative, grant him admission in the MBBS Course for the year

2012.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that after he had passed 10+2

class and had appeared in DUMET-2011 on 22.5.2011 for getting admission

in the MBBS course, upon declaration of the result on 02.06.2011, he found

that he had not cleared the entrance test and when he applied for re-

checking of the answer sheet on 3.6.2011, he was informed by the

respondent/University on 20.06.2011, on its website that no change was

found on rechecking of his answer sheet.

3. It is averred in the writ petition that after a period of six months,

in the month of December, 2011, when the petitioner was again preparing

for the MBBS Entrance Exam for the academic year 2012, he found out that

the answers to the four questions that were attempted by him in DUMET-

2011 had been rightly given by him but the respondent/University had given

wrong answers in the answer key. However, it is not denied that the

petitioner did not approach the University with the aforesaid grievance at

any stage right from the date of declaration of the result of the aforesaid

test on 02.06.2011, till the filing of the present petition on 23.02.2012.

4. When the present petition came up for hearing on 28.2.2012,

having regard to the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner

about the wrong answer in the answer key and also in view of the fact that

the Court was informed that a Committee had been constituted by the

respondent/University in February, 2012 to enquire into the matter of

incorrect answer key of DUMET-2011, counsel for the respondent/University,

who had appeared on advance copy, was directed to obtain instructions from

the department with regard to the decision taken by the competent authority

upon receiving the recommendations from the Committee constituted by the

respondent/University and place the same on record by filing a brief

affidavit.

5. A counter affidavit has since been filed on behalf of the

respondent/University, wherein it is stated that the petitioner had applied for

inspection of the report of the Committee, vide an application dated

09.01.2012 moved under the RTI Act, 2005, and the respondent/University

had given him inspection of the report on 13.02.2012. It has been denied

that the petitioner was given irrelevant extracts of the report during the

inspection as alleged by him. Instead, it is stated that only the names and

signatures of the members of the Committee were eclipsed on the report

made available to the petitioner for his perusal. An objection has also been

taken with regard to the maintainability of the present petition on account of

delay and latches on the ground that the dispute raised by the petitioner

relates to the examinations that were held in the year 2011 and the results

thereof have attained finality whereas the petitioner has chosen to approach

the Court highly belatedly by filing the present petition only in the month of

February, 2012.

6. On merits, it is averred in the counter affidavit that as per

instructions for the examinees printed on the test booklet, any observation

on the test including questions and options, if any, was required to be

reported to the Controller of Examinations within 24 hours of the test being

conducted and this information was duly printed on the first page of the test

booklet. A copy of the same is enclosed with the counter affidavit filed by

the respondent/University as Annexure R-3.

7. It is submitted that within 24 hours of conducting the

examination, only 16 representations were received by the

respondent/University from the candidates in respect of the test booklet and

questions contained therein. The said representations were duly considered

by the respondent/University and a Committee was constituted by the

respondent/University to enquire into the alleged incorrect answer keys to

the DUMET-2011 and the certified answer keys were duly provided to the

Committee. A perusal of the report of the Committee as enclosed with the

counter affidavit as Annexure R-2, reveals that the Committee had

concurred with the decision taken on the issue by the Controller of

Examinations and had recommended deletion of three questions from the

evaluation and grant of 4 marks for each of the four questions to each of the

candidates, totalling to 12 marks. It is stated by learned counsel for the

respondent/University that unlike the 16 representations there were

received from different candidates within 24 hours of conducting the

examination, the petitioner had failed to make any representation within or

even beyond the stipulated time.

8. Counsel for the petitioner refutes the aforesaid arguments by

submitting that the timeline of 24 hours is not applicable to the petitioner for

the reason that he was not questioning any observation on the test including

the questions and the options, but is only questioning the fact that the

answer key supplied by the respondent/University was incorrect.

9. This Court has considered the submissions made by the counsels

for both the parties and has also examined the documents placed on record.

It is apparent from the choronology of dates and events mentioned above

that the present petition is highly belated as the petitioner has chosen to

approach this Court in respect of the DUMET-2011 conducted by the

respondent/University in May, 2011, by filing the present petition as late as

in February, 2012. Even if the months of June and July, 2011 are excluded,

as results were declared and the rechecking that the petitioner had applied

for, took place in the said months, there is still an inexplicable delay of 8

months in filing the present petition. Even if the contention of the counsel

for the petitioner that the answer key was released by the

respondent/University only in July, 2011 is accepted, the delay on the part

of the petitioner in approaching the Court is of seven months, which is

inexplicable and inordinate when examining a case pertaining to academics

where an academic year ordinarily comprises of twelve months.

10. The Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition is

liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay of latches alone. However,

having regard to the averments made by the respondent/University in its

counter affidavit on merits, the Court is also satisfied by the fact that upon

receiving representations from 16 candidates within 24 hours of conducting

the examination, the respondent/University had taken remedial measures by

appointing an enquiry Committee which looked into the allegations of

incorrect answer key in DUMET-2011. A perusal of the report of the

Committee reveals that certified answer keys were duly provided by the

Controller of Examinations to the members of the Committee, who had

examined the said answer keys and thereafter given a recommendation that

3 questions were required to be deleted from the evaluation and the

candidates were entitled to grant of 4 marks for each of the four questions

relating to the subjects of physics and zoology. The said recommendations

were accepted by the competent authority and consequently, after deleting

the aforesaid questions from the evaluation, 12 marks were granted to each

of the candidates who had attempted DUMET-2011.

11. As for the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner‟s case is not hit by delay and latches for the reason that he has

not questioned any observation on the test but only questioned the

correctness of the answer key supplied by the respondent/University, the

Court is not inclined to accept the said submission inasmuch as the

instructions printed on the test booklet made it clear that "any observation"

pertaining to the test was required to be reported to the Controller of

Examination within 24 hours of the test being conducted and an incorrect

answer key would also be included thereunder. Therefore, the petitioner

could have very well brought his complaint to the notice of the

respondent/University within 24 hours of the test or at least within a

reasonable period therefrom. However, he did neither and as noticed above,

has approached this Court also very belatedly.

12. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court does not find any

reason to interfere in the decision making process adopted by the

respondent/University on the basis of the recommendations received from

the Committee constituted to enquire into the matter as the same does not

appear illegal, arbitrary or perverse. Accordingly, the present petition is

dismissed, along with the pending application, not only on account of delay

and latches but also on merits.

13. The date fixed in the matter, i.e., 16.7.2012 stands cancelled.

                                                                 (HIMA KOHLI)
MAY 31, 2012                                                        JUDGE
sk/anb/rkb