Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1167 (HP)

Rohit Bhiol v. State of H. P.

2011-03-10

KURIAN JOSEPH, V.K.AHUJA

body2011
JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. Writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “A) The petitioner humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent University by way of issuance of a writ of Mandamus to withdraw the results of the examination held on 10.2.2011 for admission to post graduation degree and diploma courses in respondent number 3 and 4 college declared by respondent University on 26.2.2011 which results are based on wrong key answers. B) The petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent University by way of issuance of writ of mandamus to re-evaluate the answer sheets of the petitioner and other candidates of examinations held on 10.2.2011 for admission in post graduation degree and diploma courses in respondent number 3 and 4 college by referring the question number 53 and 83 to a committee of experts or on the basis of material placed on record by petitioner. The respondents may further be directed to prepare and declare fresh results of the examination held on 10.2.2011 for admission to post graduation degree and diploma courses in respondent number 3 and 4 college and offer admission to candidates including the petitioners on the basis of the said fresh results which are based on correct key answers on the basis of admission test held on 10.2.2011.” 2. Though normally the Court does not interfere with academic matters and also with regard to the evaluation of the answer sheets, in the peculiar background of this case and in view of the admitted factual position, we are of the view that certain directions are to be issued. 3. Two questions are in dispute, i.e. Q.No.53 and Q.No.83. As far as Q.No.53 is concerned, the respondents also have no objection that both answers ‘A’ and ‘D’ are to be given the marks. As far as Q.No.83 is concerned, the original question paper setter has given the answer ‘C’. However, the Moderation Committee changes it to ‘D’. But it is seen that the very same question was at Sl.No.82 in the last year’s question paper and the answer, without objection from any corner, was ‘C’ only. Apparently, this aspect of the matter has missed the notice of the Moderation Committee. From the material produced in this case also, it is fairly demonstrated that the answer is only ‘C’. 4. Apparently, this aspect of the matter has missed the notice of the Moderation Committee. From the material produced in this case also, it is fairly demonstrated that the answer is only ‘C’. 4. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the University to take steps, without delay, to redraw the merit list on the basis of ‘A’ and ‘D’ to Q.No.53 and to ‘C’ only to Q.No.83. 5. In view of the final disposal of the main petition, the pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.