Kerala High Court
Dr.Kavitha Anilkumar vs Controller Of Entrance Exam on 17 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 27TH POUSHA, 1944
OP NO. 34831 OF 2000
PETITIONER/S:
DR.KAVITHA ANILKUMAR
DIVYA PRABHA,
PADINJATTIL LANE,
KUMARAPURAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD (SR.)
SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 CONTROLLER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-10
2 THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MEDICAL
COLLEGE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI. V. TEKCHAND, SR. GP.
THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O. P. No. 34831 of 2000
-2-
JUDGMENT
S. Manikumar, C. J.
Prayers sought for in the original petition are as follows:-
"i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, direction or order declaring that Ext.P2 ranked list prepared
by the 1st respondent for admission to Post Graduate
Degree/Diploma Course, 2000 is illegal and no admission based
on the said ranked list should be made.
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, direction or order directing the 1st respondent to reassess
the rank obtained by the petitioner in the Entrance Examination
for admission to Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Course, 2000
after including the answer given by the petitioner for the 22
questions made mention of in Ext.P3 and based on that to give
her admission to Post Graduate Course.
iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, direction or order declaring that the deletion of the 22
questions correctly answered by the petitioner made mention of
in Ext.P3 is illegal and without the authority of law and hence
those 22 questions are to be taken into account for preparing the
ranked list.
iv) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
O. P. No. 34831 of 2000
writ, direction or order prohibiting the respondents from making
any admission to Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Course, 2000
without preparing a fresh ranked list including the 22 questions
made mention of in Ext.P3."
2. On 20.12.2000, in CMP No. 59532 of 2000 in O. P. No.
34831 of 2000 and other connected cases, a Hon'ble Division Bench of
this Court, has passed the following order:-
"These writ petitions have been filed seeking a writ of
certiorari to quash the rank list published by the Commissioner
for Entrance Examinations after deleting 43 questions on the
basis of the report obtained from the expert committee
constituted for evaluating the objections received against the
question booklet and answer key. The entrance examination for
admission to the Post Graduate Medical Courses for the year
2000 was held on 6th August, 2000. After examination, the
Commissioner for Entrance Examinations published the answer
key calling for objections if any against the answers given in the
answer key. Commissioner for Entrance Examinations received
large number of objections. All objections received were sent to
the Experts so as to have their considered opinion. On the basis
of the opinion received from the Experts, 43 questions had to be
deleted either because of some of the questions are vague and
ambiguous or because of more than one correct answer was
shown in the answer key. Petitioners in these writ petitions are
aggrieved by the deletion of the various questions and have
O. P. No. 34831 of 2000
preferred these Writ petitions. On the strength of some scientific
books and study materials they took up the stand that there was
no justification in deleting various questions.
2. Petitioners in O.P.33779/2000 filed a statement on 16-
12-2000 pointing out that 15 questions were wrongly deleted.
Reference was made inter alia to questions Nos.85, 133, 138 and
150 in Paper I - Version Code-A and question Nos.31, 34, 38,
45, 49, 51, 53, 63, 89, 126 and 136 in Paper-II Version Code-A.
When the matter came up for hearing we called for the original
report submitted by the Experts in various fields, based on which
Commissioner for Entrance Examination deleted on certain
questions. We have examined the reasons for deleting the above
mentioned questions. We find cogent reasons have been stated
by the Experts for deleting those questions. We are not dealing
with each and every question in detail. For example, we notice
question No.85 in Version-A Paper-I, since the question carried
two correct answers that is, D & B, the question had to be
deleted. Reference was made to the Book on Medical
Immunology, 9th Edition, 1977 by Daniel P. Stites, Abba I.Terr,
Tristam G. Parslow. Deletion of other questions were also
substantiated. We may indicate that in a multiple choice
questions there can only be one appropriate answer. In this case
two appropriate answers are possible for question No. 85. We
are of the view under such circumstance the Commissioner for
Entrance Examinations had no other alternative but to refer the
same to the Experts. With regard to the other question also we
O. P. No. 34831 of 2000
examined the report of the Experts and found cogent reasons
have been stated for deletion.
3. Counsel for the petitioner in O.P. 32006/2000 relying
upon a paper book submitted by her, pointed out the
Commissioner for Entrance Examinations wrongly deleted
question Nos.31, 34, 36, 38, 40, 41, 51, 45, 53, 54, 49 and 102 in
version-A, Paper-II Surgeory. With regard to question No. 31,
Experts opined that the question is ambiguous since more than
one appropriate response was possible it was recommended those
questions are to be deleted. With regard to question No.34,
Experts opined that answers B and E are also correct and
therefore the same has to be deleted. With regard to question No.
36, Experts opined that question is ambiguous and more than one
appropriate answer is possible. We also examined the opinion
given by the Experts with regard to the other questions pointed
out by the counsel for the petitioner. In the case of Paper-II
Version-A Obstetrics and Gynecology, for example, question
No.88, Experts opined deletion. They have stated reasons as
well. We notice that deletion was necessitated since some
objections raised were found to be valid.
4. The Commissioner for Entrance Examinations has
only relied upon the opinion of the Experts. Commissioner for
Entrance Examinations called for the opinion of the Experts after
having obtained various objections after publishing the answer
key. Government order permits calling for objections.
Objections were received from various candidates including
persons like the petitioners. Commissioner for Entrance
O. P. No. 34831 of 2000
Examinations had no other alternative but to refer those questions
to the Expert Committee to examine the veracity of those
objections. That is exactly what the Commissioner has done.
Incidently we may notice there is unanimity among the
petitioners themselves that some of the questions are of
ambiguous import, for example, questions 59, 99 in Paper II,
questions , 95, 96 in Paper I etc. We cannot accept the
contention that Commissioner should partially accept the opinion
of the Experts and partially discard the others. We therefore find
no infirmity in the steps taken by the Commissioner. Under such
circumstance we find no reason to continue the stay granted.
Stay granted stands vacated."
Giving due consideration to the abovesaid order and as the
matter pertains to admission to PG Degree / Diploma course of the
year 2000, nothing survives for further adjudication.
Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Sd/-
S. MANIKUMAR
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY
JUDGE
Eb
///TRUE COPY/// P. A. TO JUDGE
