Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 710 (AP)

K. Naga Murali v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

2011-09-02

NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

body2011
Judgment : 1. This writ petition has been instituted by a Post Graduate Doctor challenging the final merit list prepared by the second respondent-Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences (henceforth referred to as NIMS) for admission into the Super Specialty Course of DM (Cardiology) for the academic session commencing from 2011. 2. The writ petitioner who has obtained the Post Graduate Degree in MD (General Medicine) has responded to the notification issued by NIMS on 02.05.2011 inviting applications from eligible candidates for admission into various Super Specialty Courses including DM (Cardiology). As per the addendum published by the NIMS on 17.06.2011, the entrance examination was scheduled to be held on 26.06.2011. It is notified that the marks list will be displayed on 01.07.2011. It was also notified that up to 04.00 P.M on 04.07.2011, the discrepancies noticed by the candidates in self evaluation of OMR sheets can be lodged. It was further notified that the merit list and list of qualified candidates for admission will be displayed on 07.07.2011. The qualified candidates were required to pay the fee and submit original certificates by 15.07.2011 and classes will commence from 01.08.2011. 3. Entrance test comprises of 90 objective type questions carrying one mark each. On 30.06.2011, on the website of the NIMS, the provisional results have been exhibited in a tabular form. The data exhibited included the hall ticket number, name of the candidate, his gender, local area to the university to which he/she belongs, number of attempts made by the candidate in the entrance examination, number of right answers furnished by him, number of wrong answers furnished by him and the number of questions which were not answered by him and the total marks awarded to him. In this provisional merit list, the writ petitioner who appeared at the entrance examination with Hall Ticket No.1126 was declared to have furnished 68 correct answers and 22 wrong answers and consequently he was awarded 68 marks. One Dr. Vikas was declared to have secured the maximum marks of 73. He was followed by Dr. Raj Kumar, who was declared to have secured 70 marks. Thereafter, it is the writ petitioner and one other candidate by name Dr. Venkata Maruthi Raghavendra Tammiraju secured the next best marks of 68. They are followed by two other doctors namely Dr. Dasari Sudheer Kumar and Dr. Ravi Kumar, who secured 66 marks. He was followed by Dr. Raj Kumar, who was declared to have secured 70 marks. Thereafter, it is the writ petitioner and one other candidate by name Dr. Venkata Maruthi Raghavendra Tammiraju secured the next best marks of 68. They are followed by two other doctors namely Dr. Dasari Sudheer Kumar and Dr. Ravi Kumar, who secured 66 marks. Rest of the candidates have secured far lesser marks. Thus as per the provisional merit list, while one other candidate secured equal number of marks like the petitioner, only two other candidates are declared to have secured higher marks than the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner was hopeful of securing admission against one out of the five seats available in DM (Cardiology) course. However, all his hopes in that regard have been dashed when the provisional admission list was published on 07.07.2011, showing the rank number of the petitioner in the merit list at No.7, thus reflecting six more candidates than him to have secured better ranks. In this list dated 07.07.2011, the marks of the writ petitioner have been revised from 68 to 69 while the marks of Dr. Vikas and Dr. Ravi Kumar were revised as 76 and 73 respectively, marks of Dr. Venkata Maruthi Raghavendra Tammiraju who secured earlier identical number of marks as that of the petitioner has now been declared to have secured 71 marks. Similarly, Dr. P. Lakshmikanth and Dr. D. Sudheer Kumar were also declared to have secured 71 marks each. Dr. Ravi Kumar is declared to have secured 70 marks and he has been placed immediately above the rank of the petitioner. It is this revision of the merit list, which gave rise to the present writ petition, inasmuch as the representation submitted by the petitioner immediately on 08.07.2011 to the Director of NIMS has not produced the desired result. 4. The second respondent-NIMS has filed a detailed counter affidavit in the matter. It is pointed out that as per the scheme of examination notified initially, the provisional merit list is slated to be published, on 01.07.2011 inviting discrepancies if any noticed in the self assessment of their OMR. Accordingly, it appears, several students have raised objections with regard to the correctness of the key answers. It is pointed out that as per the scheme of examination notified initially, the provisional merit list is slated to be published, on 01.07.2011 inviting discrepancies if any noticed in the self assessment of their OMR. Accordingly, it appears, several students have raised objections with regard to the correctness of the key answers. Hence, a fresh look was required to be paid to the key answers and a committee of two cardiologists after examining the key answers have furnished their opinion that answers furnished in the question paper for five questions were reported by the committee as either providing inaccurate and ambiguous answers or containing misleading information in the question itself. With regard to two questions, the committee has opined that the answers to two questions in the key need to be revised. After accepting the findings of this committee of cardiologists, a decision was taken to award marks to all the candidates irrespective of the answers furnished by them to five questions and with regard to the remaining two questions, the accurate answers furnished by the committee was made the basis for reviewing and revising the final merit. In the process, some of the candidates got the benefit by upward revision of their total marks of the consequential merit ranking position. Hence, the final merit list published on 07.07.2011 has reflected the correct inter se position of the candidates, since the petitioner has ended at merit rank No.7 and since there are already two local candidates of Andhra University local area secured better marks ranking than the petitioner, they were offered admission in DM (Cardiology) course. The petitioner cannot make any grievance out of it. 5. Heard Sri R. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.S. Bhatt, learned standing counsel for the second respondent-NIMS. 6. I have perused the opinion tendered by the committee of Cardiologists and the members of this committee were also present in the Court. It was pointed out by the committee members that as per the latest available information, the key answers were prepared, but however, noticing the discrepancy raised, a decision was taken to award five marks to all the candidates irrespective of the fact whether they have furnished correct or incorrect answers to these five questions, marks were equally awarded to all the candidates. 7. 7. While the entrance examination contains 90 objective type questions, it is too well-known that nearly 60 to 70 questions thereof keep appearing in entrance examinations conducted by one institute or the other in the country regulating the admission process to DM (Cardiology) course. It is only the remaining 20 or 30 questions which, at best, differ from the routine in the matter of content. In fact, these questions make a difference and help the institute concerned to pick up the very best candidates out of the entire lot. It is thus clear that the answers to these 20 or 30 questions separate the students who make the grade and those who end up below the dividing line, in view of the extremely limited number of seats available for admission to such Super Specialty courses. Viewed in this context, to find as many as five questions as carrying inaccurate answers, does not reflect a very happy position. Premier Medical Educational Institutions cannot afford to provide for such a huge error margin, without risking a dent to their professional pride. Higher the percentage of error margin, lesser would be the legitimacy as to the claim of excellence in the field. It is, therefore, rather unfortunate that the second respondent, being such a premier Medical Educational Institution in our State, should have failed in its efforts to minimize the error margin beyond the tolerable limits of one or two percent. Freedom from erring is the only way acceptable at the hands of such institutions. 8. At the same time, all because of the errors committed either by the persons who have set the questions or furnished the key answers thereto, no student should suffer. It is therefore only appropriate that an opportunity should always be kept open for a possible correction. That is exactly what the NIMS has notified through its addendum dated 17.06.2011 that discrepancies/ objections from the students were welcome till 04.00 P.M on 04.07.2011 and all such objections/suggestions/discrepancies have been referred to a team of qualified cardiologists for their verification and correction. Such measures are undoubtedly welcome measures. They add to the transparency of the whole process. Further, it would help the institution to dispel any misgivings in the minds of the candidates who took the examination. Such measures are undoubtedly welcome measures. They add to the transparency of the whole process. Further, it would help the institution to dispel any misgivings in the minds of the candidates who took the examination. An interactive session like the present one will only add a qualitative dimension to the entire exercise, thus enhancing the credibility of the process of admission. After all the admission to Super Specialty medical courses should be offered only to the very best amongst the otherwise qualified members. That will ensure that the Super Specialists who roll out later-on get properly trained to retain a higher efficiency level, while treating and dealing with the patients. I therefore do not find anything improper in the exercise indulged in by NIMS in this regard and hence I have no hesitation to reject the contention canvassed to the contra by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. The rapidity with which science and technology keep updating the knowledge is bound to call for constant enhancement and enrichment of the knowledge on the chosen field of study. If a team of qualified cardiologists, who are supposed to have kept abreast with the latest developments in the field, find inaccuracies in the answers, the best way to mitigate the hardship caused correspondingly to the students, is to add one mark to everyone or delete such questions completely from out of the reckoning. In either of these two situations, the net result would not be different. However, with regard to two other questions, the answers have been appropriately revised by the committee. It is now established that this has tilted the ultimate balance against the petitioner and in favour of others. In the whole process, the writ petitioner stood to a gain of only one mark whereas, in respect of others, the corresponding gain ranged between 2 to 6 marks. Because of the accidental variation of gains, the merit list has undergone a revision. Because of this revision, the writ petitioner slided out of the third rank to seventh rank. 10. The writ petitioner has not chosen to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the answers prepared and adopted for valuation by the revising committee of cardiologists. He has not chosen to challenge the correctness of the notions entertained by the said committee, with reference to any authoritative texts or material on the science of cardiology. 10. The writ petitioner has not chosen to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the answers prepared and adopted for valuation by the revising committee of cardiologists. He has not chosen to challenge the correctness of the notions entertained by the said committee, with reference to any authoritative texts or material on the science of cardiology. Since the Court is not equipped with even a basic knowledge to verify the correctness or otherwise of the answers prepared for the various questions by the committee of cardiologists, the only way, possibly perhaps, it could have examined the same is with the help of any authoritative textbook or researched documentation which squarely challenges the correctness of the notions entertained by the committee of cardiologists. 11. Since the petitioner has not chosen to place reliance upon any such material, inspite of my providing the learned counsel for the petitioner an opportunity to do so, by suitable adjourning the matter, I am constrained to record my inability to examine deeply the correctness or otherwise of the exercise carried out by the committee of cardiologists. I have confined my scrutiny as to the accuracy of the arithmetical correctness of the exercise. Since I do not find anything wrong in that regard, I am constrained to dismiss this writ petition as merit less and accordingly it is dismissed without costs. 12. I take this opportunity to hope and trust that from the next academic year onwards, the second respondent would bestow adequate and appropriate attention to the task of preparation of the question paper, preparation of the key answers and be in readiness with necessary reference books, in case of any challenge received from any of the students, much prior to holding the examination itself.