Karnataka High Court
Thanmay U vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29153-DB
WA No. 1070 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N.V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1070 OF 2024 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. THANMAY U
S/O C UMASHANKARA
AGED 18 YEARS, R/O NO.7
MYLARA LINGESHWARA NILAYA
OPP. EAGLE BAKERY
GANESHA SAW MILL ROAD
T. DASARAHALLI
BENGALURU-560057 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI B N AMBARISH, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by AND:
VASANTHAKUMARY
BK
Location: High Court 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
of Karnataka
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
SCHOOL EDUCATION AND
LITERACY DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001
2. KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY
+ CET CELL, REPRESENTED BY
CHIEF EVALUATION OFFICER
18TH CROSS ROAD, SAMPIGE ROAD
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29153-DB
WA No. 1070 of 2024
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560012 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.07.2024 IN WRIT PETITION
NO.16700/2024 (EDN-RES) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr. B.N. Ambarish for the appellant
and learned Additional Government Advocate Ms. Niloufer Akbar
for respondent No.1.
2. What is sought to be challenged in this appeal is the
judgment and order dated 05.07.2024 passed by learned Single
Judge, whereby the petition of the appellant-petitioner came to be
disposed of without granting any relief.
NC: 2024:KHC:29153-DB
2.1 In the writ petition, the petitioner prayed to direct respondent
No.2-Karnataka Examination Authority to conduct Counselling for
Engineering seats based on the rank list prepared by including all
180 questions in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and
Mathematics. It was further prayed to direct the very respondent to
provide relatively higher marks to the petitioner as he studied in
Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) while calculating
the rank, considering the difficulty level of CBSE papers over PUC
papers.
3. It was the case of the petitioner inter alia that he took the
Karnataka Common Entrance Test-2024 examination conducted in
the State with a view to get entry in the Engineering Colleges in
Karnataka. It was stated that the said examination consists of four
subjects namely, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Biology. It
was a multiple choice examination. In all the subjects, 60
questions will be asked and the students are offered 60 minutes to
write the examination. In 60 minutes, it was stated, that the
students had to solve 60 questions.
NC: 2024:KHC:29153-DB
3.1 It was stated that the petitioner secured 7640 rank when the
results were announced on 01.06.2024 in the Karnataka Common
Entrance Test-2024. It was further stated that the National Council
of Educational Research and Training had removed for the
academic year 2023-24, certain portions from the syllabus. It
appears that certain questions were removed which were out of
syllabus in the question paper of the said examination.
3.2 The main grievance of the petitioner is that before the
process of evaluation, the respondents excluded several questions
and the evaluation of the answer book was confined in respect of
the questions other than those expunged. According to the
petitioner, such exclusion prejudiced him.
4. It was submitted that there were in total 240 questions to be
attempted divided into 60 questions each for four subjects,
however, as many as 50 questions were deleted. What was
sought to be next submitted was that candidates like the petitioner
had to spend time in answering the 50 questions which were
subsequently deleted from evaluation. Therefore, the time of the
NC: 2024:KHC:29153-DB
petitioner was wasted and that the petitioner stood prejudiced when
time was very precious for him for attempting the questions.
5. As rightly noticed and observed by learned Single Judge that
the government had set up a Committee to examine the questions
which were out of syllabus. The Committee recorded a finding. It
was observed that the questions which were excluded were
beyond the syllabus and that the syllabus was already made known
to the students. In that view, the questions which were out of
syllabus came to be omitted from consideration. There were
complaints that the questions were asked out of syllabus.
5.1 Learned Single Judge accepted the contention of the State
that individual grievances should not be allowed to have the effect
of unsettling the entire process.
5.2 With regard to the prayer of the petitioner to provide higher
marks on the ground that the petitioner had studied in CBSE,
learned Single Judge was entirely justified in observing that they
were the matters to be considered at the policy level at the
appropriate stage.
NC: 2024:KHC:29153-DB
5.3 While not granting relief to the petitioner, learned Single
Judge observed thus,
"Needless to state the apprehension of the
petitioner as also of other students that, such
exclusion of questions has caused prejudice
insofar as the candidates would have adjusted the
time depending on the questions that they are in a
better position to answer, is an aspect that is to be
taken note of appropriately in order to avoid such
situations in future. The Court cannot enter into
the aspect of validity of decision taken by the
Government based on the applicable syllabus
which is the decision of the experts."
5.4 The decision to exclude 50 questions from the zone of
evaluation was a decision taken by the Expert Committee. It was a
decision taken on valid ground that the questions were not from the
syllabus notified. It was an academic decision by the academic
experts.
5.5 The Court would not review such decision when it was based
on entirely relevant considerations. The scope of interference in
education matters for the Court has to be minimal. In the present
case, the expert body has taken a decision not to count the set of
NC: 2024:KHC:29153-DB
questions while evaluation on the aforesaid ground that they were
asked out of syllabus.
6. The judgment and order of learned Single Judge was
eminently just, proper and legal. No error could be booked.
7. The present appeal is dismissed as meritless.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND)
JUDGE
BKV
