Kerala High Court
Susruth K vs The Union Of India on 7 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.27637 OF 2020(D)
PETITIONER/S:
SUSRUTH K,,
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O.SANTHOSH.V.K.,
KEZHKOOT HOUSE,
KUMARAPPANAL P.O.,
VARAVUR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 585.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR
SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.M.KIRANLAL
SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
SRI.T.S.SARATH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE UNION OF INDIA,
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (HIGHER EDUCATION),
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT,
NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
WP(C).No.27637 OF 2020
2
4 DIRECTOR, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, CALCUTTA,
DIAMOND HARBOUR ROAD JOKA,
KOLKATA (CALCUTTA)-700 104,
WEST BENGAL INDIA.
5 DIRECTOR, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,
AHMEDABAD, VASTRAPUR,
AHMEDABAD-380 015,
GUJARAT, INDIA.
6 DIRECTOR, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,
BANGALORE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560 076, INDIA.
7 DIRECTOR, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,
LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW PRABANDH NAGAR,
IIM ROAD, LUCKNOW-226 013.
8 DIRECTOR, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,
INDORE, PRABANDH SHIKHAR,
RAU-PITHAMPUR ROAD, INDORE,
MADHYA PRADESH-435 556, INDIA.
9 DIRECTOR, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,
KOZHIKODE, IIMK CAMPUS P.O.,
KOZHIKODE, KERALA,
INDIA, PIN-673 570.
10 DIRECTOR,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,
SHILLONG, MAYURBHANJ COMPLEX,
EAST KHASI HILLS DISTRICT,
NANGTHYMMAI, SHILLONG,
MEGHALAYA-793 014, INDIA.
11 DIRECTOR,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,
ROHTAK, NH-10 SOUTHERN BYPASS,
SUNARIA, ROHTAK, 124010,
HARYANA, INDIA.
12 DIRECTOR,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,
RANCHI, SUCHANA BHAWAN,
5TH FLOOR, AUDREY HOUSE CAMPUS,
MEUR'S ROAD, RANCHI-834 008.
WP(C).No.27637 OF 2020
3
13 DIRECTOR,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,
RAIPUR, ATAL NAGAR,
P.O.-KURRU(ABHANPUR),
RAIPUR(CG)-493 661.
14 DIRECTOR,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,
THIRUCHIRAPALLY,
PUDUKKOTTAI MAIN ROAD,
CHINNA SOORIYUR VILLAGE,
TIRUCHIRAPPALLI-620 024,
TAMIL NADU.
15 DIRECTOR,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,
KASHIPUR, KUNDESHWARI,
KASHIPUR, DISTRICT-UDHAM SINGH NAGAR,
UTTARKHAND-244 713, INDIA.
16 DIRECTOR,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,
UDAIPUR, MOHANLAL SUKHADIA UNIVERSITY,
UDAIPUR-313 001, RAJASTHAN, INDIA.
17 DIRECTOR,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,
AMRITSAR, AMRITSAR II,
AMRITSAR-143 105, PUNJAB, INDIA.
18 DIRECTOR,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,
SIRMAUR, PAONTA SAHIB,
SIRMAUR, 173025,
HIMACHAL PRADESH, INDIA.
19 DIRECTOR,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,
SAMBALPUR, SILICON INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
NUAKHURIGAN-768 200, ODISHA, INDIA.
20 DIRECTOR,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,
VISHAKAPATANAM,
ANDHRA BANK SCHOOL OF BUSINESS BUILDING,
ANDHRA UNIVERSITY CAMPUS,
VISAKHAPATNAM-530 003.
WP(C).No.27637 OF 2020
4
21 DIRECTOR,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,
NAGPUR, VNIT CAMPUS, SOUTH,
AMBAZARI ROAD, NAGPUR,
MAHARASHTRA-440 010, INDIA.
22 DIRECTOR,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,
BODHAGAYA, SAMATVAM,
THE MINDFULNESS CENTRE URUVELA,
PRABANDH VIHAR, BODH GAYA-824 234, INDIA.
23 DIRECTOR,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,
JAMMU, OLD UNIVERSITY CAMPUS,
CANAL ROAD, JAMMU-180 016.
24 C.E.O.,
REPRESENTING TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED,
REGISTERED AT: 9TH FLOOR,
NIRMAL BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT,
MUMBAI-400 021,
SITUATED IN STATE AT: VISMAYA BUILDING,
INFOPARK, KUSUMAGIRI P.O.,
KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 030, KERALA.
R1, R8 BY SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC
R24 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS
R24 BY ADV. SRI.D.PREM KAMATH
R24 BY ADV. SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)
R24 BY ADV. SHRI.ABEL TOM BENNY
R24 BY ADV. SHRI.JYOTHISH KRISHNA
R24 BY ADV. SMT.MEENAKSHY S DEV
R24 BY ADV. SHRI.AHAMMAD SACHIN K.
R24 BY ADV. SHRI.KURIAN OOMMEN THERAKATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07-01-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.27637 OF 2020
5
W.P.(C)No.27637 of 2020
-----------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
This matter relates to the Common Admission Test 2020 (the
test), the qualifying examination for admission to the various courses
conducted by the Indian Institutes of Management in the country namely
respondents 4 to 23. The test was conducted by the eighth respondent
institute on their behalf and also on behalf of other institutes.
2. The petitioner is one among the candidates applied for
the test which was scheduled to take place in three sessions on
29.11.2020. Ext.P2 is the Admit Card issued to the petitioner for the said
purpose by the competent authority. It is stated by the petitioner that his
mother was tested positive for COVID-19 infection on 22.11.2020 and as
the petitioner, who was residing with his mother, was advised by the
officials of the Health Service Department of the State to be in
quarantine, he sent Ext.P4 request by email to the authority conducting
the test to let him know the particulars of the protocol to be followed by
him for partaking in the test. In Ext.P5 reply to Ext.P4 email, the
petitioner was informed that if he is not identified as a potential carrier of
COVID-19 virus, he can appear for the test after giving a self declaration
as provided for in the Admit Card. It is stated by the petitioner that later
on 27.11.2020, he was also tested positive for COVID-19 infection. The
WP(C).No.27637 OF 2020
petitioner, then preferred Ext.P7 request by email to the authority
conducting the test to let him know the protocols to be followed by him
for partaking in the test. It is alleged by the petitioner that there was no
response to Ext.P7 request and the petitioner could not therefore appear
for the test. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition in
essence is that it was obligatory for the competent authority to make
necessary arrangements to enable the petitioner and other similarly
placed candidates to appear for the test and in as much as
arrangements have not been made for the same, the competent
authority is bound to conduct another session of the test for them to be
qualified to secure admission to the various courses conducted by
respondents 4 to 23. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate
directions to the respondents concerned to conduct an additional session
of the test with proper protocol and facilitation for those candidates who
could not appear for the test held on 29.11.2020 on account of COVID-19
infection.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned Central Government counsel as also the learned counsel for
respondent No.24.
4. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in
Rakesh Kumar Agarwalla and Others v. National Law School of
India University, Bengaluru and Others, AIR 2020 SC 4461 and the
interim order passed in the said matter on 28.09.2020 directing the
competent authority to provide appropriate facilities for a candidate who
was in isolation for suspected COVID-19 infection to appear for the
WP(C).No.27637 OF 2020
Common Law Admission Test 2020, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the inaction on the part of the competent authority in
making necessary arrangements to enable COVID-19 infected candidates
to appear for the test was arbitrary and unfair. It was also submitted by
the learned counsel for the petitioner that in so far as the competent
authority has failed to make necessary arrangements to enable COVID-19
infected candidates to appear for the test, they are obliged to conduct an
additional session of the test for such candidates.
5. Per contra, the learned Central Government Counsel
appearing for the eighth respondent submitted that having regard to the
peculiar situation created by the pandemic, possibility of another session
of the test has in fact been considered by the committee conducting the
test and it was found that the test being the qualifying examination for
admission to the various courses conducted by the prestigious Indian
Institutes of Management, considerable time is required to prepare the
question papers for another session of the test and even if question
papers are prepared for another session of the test, since particulars for
such a session would be minimal, it would not be possible to do
normalization of the scores of such candidates and that the idea of
conducting another session of the test was consequently dropped. It was
also submitted by the learned Central Government Counsel that the
identical relief prayed for by similarly placed candidates in the context of
JEE(Advanced) Examination, 2020 was declined by the Delhi High Court
as per the judgment in W.P.(C)No.7444 of 2020. On a query from the
court, the learned Central Government Counsel conceded that the
WP(C).No.27637 OF 2020
consistent stand of the Central Government being that persons suffering
from COVID-19 infection have to remain in isolation, alternative
arrangements have not been made to enable such candidates to appear
for the test.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties on either side.
7. Insofar as the petitioner could not appear for the test
held on 29.11.2020, the questions arising for consideration are (1)
whether it was obligatory for the competent authority to make necessary
arrangements to enable the petitioner and other similarly placed
candidates to appear for the test and (2) if so, whether the petitioner is
entitled to a direction to the respondents concerned to conduct an
additional session of the test.
8. As noted, the contention taken by the eighth
respondent is that it is impossible to conduct another session of the test.
If the said contention is upheld, it is unnecessary to consider the
questions referred to in the preceding paragraph. As such, I shall proceed
to consider the sustainability or otherwise of the contention taken by the
eighth respondent.
9. In the course of the arguments, the learned Central
Government Counsel has handed over to the Court the written
instructions received by him from the eighth respondent. The written
instructions handed over to the court reveals that the test committee
deliberated on the possibility of conducting re-examination for COVID-19
positive candidates who could not appear for the test and found that such
WP(C).No.27637 OF 2020
a course is not viable due to the following reasons :
"1. Preparing a new question paper of the CAT exam
level requires a considerable amount of time and effort. This
year the number of question papers had to be increased
midway to three due to the decision of increasing the number of
shifts to three owing to COVID (instead of two papers in regular
years). It took nearly six months for the question paper
preparation process to complete.
2. It would not be possible to do normalization of
scores for a new question paper with a small number of
candidates. CAT normalizes the scores of the candidates
according to the shift they appear in while determining their
percentiles. For the normalization process to work properly the
number of candidates in a shift needs to be significantly large
(for example, more than 59,000 candidates appeared in each of
the three shifts this year)."
There is absolutely no reason for doubting the correctness of the
aforesaid stand of the eighth respondent. It is all the more so since it is
trite that it would be wise and safe generally for the courts to leave the
decisions on academic matters to experts who are familiar with the
problems they face than the courts. In other words, even if it is found that
it was obligatory for the competent authority to make necessary
arrangements to enable the petitioner and other similarly placed
candidates to appear for the test, the relief claimed by the petitioner
cannot be granted.
10. The only other option available to redress the grievance
of the petitioner would be to direct the competent authority to conduct
the test afresh for all the candidates. Should that course be adopted for
the purpose of rendering justice to the petitioner is the remaining
WP(C).No.27637 OF 2020
question. It is revealed from the written instruction furnished to the
counsel by the eighth respondent, which was handed over to the court,
that about 1.9 lakhs candidates have appeared for the three sessions of
the test held on 29.11.2020. Merely for the reason that the petitioner
could not participate in the test on account of reasons not attributable to
him, according to me, this court would not be justified in ordering the
test to be conducted afresh, as for conducting the test afresh, a new set
of question papers are to be prepared, and as noted, the same will take
considerable time in addition to the efforts to be put in by large number
of persons and even if such a course is adopted, the courses cannot be
conducted by the institutes as scheduled by them now, which would
adversely affect the career prospects of large number of candidates who
have appeared for the test. I am fortified in this view by the observations
made by the Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh and others v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and others, (2018) 2 SCC 357, in the context of the
mistakes in the answer key prepared for a similar test, which read thus :
"31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion
does not play any role in the matter of directing or not
directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is
committed by the examination authority, the complete body of
candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not
deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are
disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having
been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous
answer. All candidates suffer equally, through some might
suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical
precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way
out of an impasse - exclude the suspect or offending question."
WP(C).No.27637 OF 2020
11. Coming to the argument advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, it is seen that the candidate in whose favour
interim order has been passed by the Apex Court in Rakesh Kumar
Agarwalla was not a Covid-19 infected person. The candidate was only a
person suspected of Covid-19 infection. Further, the interim order was
one passed prior to the test. Even while I am conscious of the fact that
the petitioner could not have approached this court for relief before the
test for want of time, I am of the view that the said interim order of the
Apex Court may not be of any benefit to the petitioner.
The writ petition, in the circumstances, is without merits and
the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE
rkj
WP(C).No.27637 OF 2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR CAT MADE
BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPECTIVE ONLINE
PLATFORM.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF ADMIT CARD ISSUED ON
28.10.2020 BY AUTHORITY CONCERNED.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S MOTHER'S
TEST RESULT CONFIRMING COVID 19 VIRUS
PRESENCE AS ON 22.11.2020.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF EMAIL SENT TO RECOGNIZED
EMAIL ADDRESS BY THE PETITIONER AS ON
22.11.2020.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF RESPONSE EMAIL TO EXT.P4
EMAIL AS ON 26.11.2020.
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF TEST RESULT CONFIRMING
PETITIONER BEING COVID 19 VIRUS INFECTION
AS ON 27.11.2020.
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF 2ND REPRESENTATION
THROUGH EMAIL TO RECOGNIZED EMAIL ADDRESS
AS ON 27.11.2020.
EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF MEDIA RELEASE MADE BY
THE AUTHORITY CONDUCTING CAT EXAMINATION
AS ON 15.09.2020.
EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF MEDIA RELEASE MADE BY
THE AUTHORITY CONDUCTING CAT AFTER
ISSUANCE OF ADMIT CARD.
EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF DISCLAIMER MADE BY THE
AUTHORITY CONCERNED FOR CONDUCTING CAT
EXAMINATION.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R8(a) TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF
THE MEETING DATED DECEMBER 16, 2020.
