R. K. ABICHANDANI, J. ( 1 ) THESE three young students who have failed at the examination in the subject of English Compulsory held in March/april 1993 have approached this Court for a direction on the respondent to add 9 marks in the result of all the students and in particular the petitioners who had appeared at the said examination. ( 2 ) THE main attack of the petitioners against the outcome of their result in the subject of English Compulsory is that the questions were not correctly framed and the instruction given in the question paper as well as the blanks shown in the questions were such that the minds of the students would get confused while attempting them. Though it has been stated in the petition that all the students have passed in all the subjects except English at the hearing it was pointed out that the petitioner No. 1 had failed in English Compulsory and also in Special English. The case of the petitioners is that the expectation of the University from these students was very high and idealistic. It is stated that as the questions were not correctly framed the students were misled and confused and they had therefore failed in the subject of English. It is stated that in question No. 4 (A) there was no underlining done as mentioned therein. Moreover in question No. 4 (B) which related to using the correct form of the auxiliary verb given in the bracket to complete the sentences the instructions were misleading and that the questions were not correctly framed. In question No. 4 (C) which was for completing the sentences using correct form of the verb shown in the bracket the instruction was insufficient as there was no indication to use negative where necessary. As regards question No. 4 (D) also it is stated that the question is not clear and at one place instruction is given in the midst of the sentence instead of being given at the end. As regards question No. 2 as to How many times did Fischer meet Gandhi ? the contention is that the key answer that Fischer met Gandhi twice was not correct. The correctness of key-answers (2) (ii) 2 2 and 2 (vii)is also challenged. ( 3 ) IT was strongly contended by Mr. As regards question No. 2 as to How many times did Fischer meet Gandhi ? the contention is that the key answer that Fischer met Gandhi twice was not correct. The correctness of key-answers (2) (ii) 2 2 and 2 (vii)is also challenged. ( 3 ) IT was strongly contended by Mr. B. P. Tanna the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners that the students were pursuing the subject only at the level of First Year B. A. and the authorities ought to have known that they would be misled if blanks were shown at wrong places and proper instructions were not given in the question paper. He submitted that the form in which the question 4 (B) and 4 (C) were framed was not correct and it would misled the petitioners. He also submitted that the key-answer to Question No. 2 particularly in respect of Sevagram being near Ahmedabad were wrong. He referred to flaws pointed out in the petition in support of his argument. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel Mr. Shelat on the other hand submitted that all these key-answers were based on the material which was prescribed for study. He demonstrated the correctness of the key answers with reference to Frontiers of Prose Edited by T. Prabhakar which admittedly is the prescribed book on the subject. He also referred to A Practical English Gram mar Exercises by A. J. Thomson and A. V. Martinet which is also prescribed by the University for the students of F. Y. B. A. ( 5 ) FROM the material on record the position that emerges as regards the question paper and the key-answers which are in dispute is as follows:question No. 2 (i) of the said paper reads as under: 2 Answer any five of the following questions in brief: (i) How many times did Fischer meet Gandhi ? When and where did he meet him ? the key-answer to this question is contained in Annexure C which key the students have annexed with their petition having obtained it from source not disclosed. QUESTION No. 2 (i) Model Answer is as follows: fischer met Gandhi at two times. First he met him at Sevagram near Ahmedabad in 1942. At the second time he met him in 1946 at the untouchables slum in New Delhi. QUESTION No. 2 (i) Model Answer is as follows: fischer met Gandhi at two times. First he met him at Sevagram near Ahmedabad in 1942. At the second time he met him in 1946 at the untouchables slum in New Delhi. ( 6 ) THE correctness of this key-answer is borne out from the prescribed textbook in the first article (Gandhi and the Western World by Louis Fischer) in which it has been stated that the writer had lived in Gandhis village at his house guest or hut guest in the year 1942 and 4 years thereafter he met him at the untouchables slum in New Delhi. The expression Gandhis village is described below the heading notes on page 8 as Sevagram near Ahmedabad. Apart from the correctness of the fact whether Sevagram is near Ahmedabad or not it is clear that the question is based on the textbook. The emphasis of the question is as to on how many times did Fischer meet Gandhi and where did he meet him ? Having regard to the contents of the prescribed textbook it cannot be said that the key-answer for this question was wrong or that Fischer did not meet Gandhi twice as stated in the position. ( 7 ) EVEN as regards question No. 2 (ii) 2 2 and 2 (vii) in respect of which contentions were raised it has been demonstrated from the prescribed textbook that the key-answers were correctly framed. The prescribed textbook is produced at Annexure A to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents. ( 8 ) AS regards question No. 4 (B) the contention is that the instructions are not properly given and blanks are shown at wrong places in these questions. The instructions given read as under:"use the correct form of the auxiliary verb given in the bracket to complete the following sentences use negatives where necessary (any three)". ( 9 ) THE first attack against these instructions was that instead of given the bracket it should be given in the brackets. However it is obvious that the reader cannot make any mistake in understanding these instructions as the omission is insignificant. The instructions do not say that any blanks were to be filled-in. In other words it is not a question where only blanks were required to be filled-in. The students were required to complete the sentences using negatives where necessary. However it is obvious that the reader cannot make any mistake in understanding these instructions as the omission is insignificant. The instructions do not say that any blanks were to be filled-in. In other words it is not a question where only blanks were required to be filled-in. The students were required to complete the sentences using negatives where necessary. For example question No. 4 (B) (i) reads as under:"you have a good journey yesterday ? (do)" ( 10 ) IT is at once obvious from the question mark that the sentence is required to be reframed and is not correct in the form in which it is given. This particular question is based on Exercise 4 of the prescribed English Grammar Exercises. When the student is required to complete the sentence and when there were no instructions for filling up the blanks only the student is expected to formulate a correct sentence in answer to the question. This is also implicit in the meaning of word sentence which means a series of words in connected speech of writing forming the grammatically complete expression of a single thought. Therefore the students were required to make the sentence in a correct grammatical form. In the examination for the subject of Higher English the students while attempting formation of sentence are required to answer by giving its correct grammatical formulation. A student appearing at such examination is expected on reading such question to know that the sentence as written in the question is not in its correct form and that he is expected to answer the question by putting it in its correct form. How to frame the questions and what degree of knowledge to expect from the candidates is for the paper-setter to decide and correctness of the answer is required to be judged by the Examiner. The key-answers which are given in respect of Question No. 4 (B) (i) to (v) have been demonstrated to be correct and therefore the only attack that remained was against showing of the blank spaces in the questions. As observed above the students were not just required to fill-in the blanks but were required to formulate the sentences by using correct form of auxiliary verb given in the bracket and by using negatives wherever necessary. Even question No. 4 (C) does not require the students to just fill-up the blanks. As observed above the students were not just required to fill-in the blanks but were required to formulate the sentences by using correct form of auxiliary verb given in the bracket and by using negatives wherever necessary. Even question No. 4 (C) does not require the students to just fill-up the blanks. They were required to complete any three of the sentences using correct form of the verb given in the bracket. The students ought to have known that by merely inserting the verb shown in bracket in the blank space it made no sense and that they were required to formulate a grammatically correct sentences for which they were being tested. The key-answers to question No. 4 (C) have also been demonstrated to be correct ( 11 ) THE answer books were made available in Court for inspection by all concerned and it is clear from the dismal performance that there is no injustice caused to these students in assessing the answer-books and they have been duly assessed on merits. Wherever the students have given correct answers they have been given marks and where they have gone wrong they have been assessed accordingly. It is not as if the answers given by the students are correct and the key-answers are wrong. Therefore the decision of the Supreme Court in Abhijit Sen and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others AIR 1984 S. C. 1402 will have no application to the facts of this case. The petitioners have thus failed to make out any ground for interference by this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. ( 12 ) THE petitioners have made a representation on 11 to the Vice-Chancellor and that representation is not yet decided upon in view of the pendency of this petition as stated by the learned Counsel for the respondent. In that representation the petitioners have stated that if their grievances were not redressed they would adopt a Gandhian path for fighting injustice. These students while remembering the Gandhian way for getting higher marks in the subject of English do not seem to have taken note of the Gandhian ideas on the use of English language. Even the University has by making English a compulsory subject for the students of F. Y. B. A. not paid much tribute to the Gandhian ideas on use of English. Even the University has by making English a compulsory subject for the students of F. Y. B. A. not paid much tribute to the Gandhian ideas on use of English. Gandhiji believed in the theory that acquisition of proficiency in ones language is more important than the effort spent over mastering a foreign tongue. He had no doubt that if knowledge were imparted through the mother tongue there would be a saving in time money and effort to our nation. He believed that education through a foreign tongue has estranged us from the general mass of our people and has produced a gulf between the educated classes and the masses. And one hears the anguished cry of Shri K. S. Acharlu the ardent follower of the Mahatma in Gandhi Vigyan (October 1993 issue) that the vision of Gandhi of education which was worthy of being treated with utmost reverence has been treated with scant courtesy. The bewitching style of Rabindranath Tagore did not owe its excellence to his knowledge of English nor did he borrow his ideas from English literature. For the enrichment of the mother tongue what is needed is not a love of English but love and respect for ones own language. We use English in our Legislatures Courts and Public Undertakings and thus vast knowledge that could be acquired much easily by the people goes to waste. This is not to undermine the importance of the language that found its way all over the world but to emphasise that the energies of our youth should not fritter away in a pursuit of mastering the foreign tongue with the limitation within and without that are not easy to overcome. If the effort to master a foreign language is made with a view to enrich knowledge it would be welcome but if the idea is just to join those who mimic the alien cultures it would be sheer waste of energy with no purpose achieved and can lead to frustration of our young and bright students. ( 13 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the Vice-Chancellor will bestow his attention to the representation which is made by the petitioners and the petitioners are free to make a further representation in the matter which also will be considered if made in good time. ( 13 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the Vice-Chancellor will bestow his attention to the representation which is made by the petitioners and the petitioners are free to make a further representation in the matter which also will be considered if made in good time. The learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners will make such representation within one week from today. The Vice Chancellor shall consider these representations sympathetically in consultation with the appropriate authorities of the University without being influenced by the fact that this petition is rejected. The learned Counsel for the respondent states that the representation which is already made and the representation which will be made within one week will all be decided and disposed of by the Vice-Chancellor within three weeks from today. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Rule discharged. .