Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1442 (GUJ)

Mihir Satishbhai Pamnani v. State of Gujarat

2016-07-21

N.V.ANJARIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : On 21.07.2016, the following order was passed. “Learned advocate Mr. Sudhansu Jha for learned advocate Mr. A. D. Oza for respondent No.2 tenders affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the second respondent, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Digant Popat learned advocate for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Amita Shah for the respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr. Sudhansu Jha for learned advocate Mr. A. D. Oza for the respondent No.2-Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board. 3. In view of the admission process being imminent, urgency exists. The arguments have been concluded. The following order is passed. 4. Due to paucity of time, the reasons shall follow hereinafter. 5. For the reasons to follow, this petition is allowed in terms of para-12(A). The respondent authorities are directed to consider the answer of the question No.114 as correctly attempted by the petitioner. Resultantly, the respondent authorities are directed to add the mark accordingly in the result of the petitioner and treat the petitioner having obtained the marks accordingly. Consequences of this to follow. Direct service is permitted today.” The Reasons : 2. Should computer's “intellect” be allowed to overtake human understanding and judgment, more particularly when the computer's application is an error, as one could easily perceive and judge. 3. The petitioner student has prayed, by filling of the present petition, for a direction against the respondent authorities Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board to consider the answer of question No. 114 as correctly attempted by the petitioner, seeking further direction to add marks accordingly in the petitioner’s result. 3.1 The petitioner appeared in the examination called Gujarat Common Entrance Test-2016 held on 10.05.2016 by the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education. The said examination is held for admission to Medical Courses in Gujarat State. The result of the said examination was declared on 17.05.2016. The petitioner was shown to have obtained 110.5 marks out of total 120 marks. 3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that he approached the Secretary of the second respondent for obtaining copy of OMR answer-sheet, as provided under clause 4.5 of the Information Booklet published by the respondent in respect of the said examination. Clause 4.5 reads as under,- “Rechecking will not be done. If any candidate wishes to have Xerox copy of OMR answer-sheet, the candidate shall have to pay fees of Rs. Clause 4.5 reads as under,- “Rechecking will not be done. If any candidate wishes to have Xerox copy of OMR answer-sheet, the candidate shall have to pay fees of Rs. 200/- along with application made as per Appendix-13 and Xerox copy of the Answer-sheet will be sent to such candidate by post. Fees are to be paid in form of Bank DD of Nationalised Bank payable at Ahmedabad in the name of “Secretary, Gujarat Common Entrance Test Cell, Gandhinagar.” 3.3 The petitioner received copy of the OMR answer-sheet alongwith verification report printed on 27.06.2016. The case of the petitioner, as is revealed from the OMR answer-sheet and the verification report, that he answered question No. 114 by choosing multiple option (C). It was a correct answer. Thus, the said question was properly attempted by the petitioner and the answer having been correctly chosen, the petitioner was entitled to be given marks for the same. It is the further case of the petitioner that the dot mark in option-B was inadvertent. The actual answer by darkening the circle fully was against answer-C only, and there was no darkening of the circle completely against option (B), yet it is treated to have been attempted and further treating it to be a wrong answer, the marks were arbitrarily deducted. 4. On behalf of the second respondent, affidavit-in-reply is filed by contending inter alia that petitioner had opted for two answers by darkening two circles for one multiple choice question. It is contended that the students are imparted necessary information and instructions at the time of examination as to how to attempt the answers. According to affidavit-in-reply, Rule 3.8 B of the Gujarat Common Entrance Test Rules provides that no change is permissible after answering the question once. The second respondent has further relied on Rule 3.9, which deals with the ‘Method of Assessment’. It is contended that in Rule 3.9(iii), the marking method of assessment is provided, which clearly states that if the candidate has opted for two or more options for one multiple choice question, one less marking, that is negative marking, is given. The stand of the respondent is thus that the petitioner had attempted two answers in respect of one question No. 114 by choosing option ‘B’ as well as option (C). Therefore, was accordingly treated and the marks were deducted. 5. The stand of the respondent is thus that the petitioner had attempted two answers in respect of one question No. 114 by choosing option ‘B’ as well as option (C). Therefore, was accordingly treated and the marks were deducted. 5. The information booklet in respect of the GUJCET, 2016 amongst other information, also provides the information regarding the method of marking, method of indication of answer, method of assessment etc. For any wrong answer attempted by the candidate, 0.25 marks are deducted. If the candidate selects multiple option, one mark is deducted. The case of the petitioner is that inspite of his giving correct answer to question No. 114, for which the petitioner ought to have been given one mark, one mark been deducted. As one mark is deducted, it has resulted into difference of two marks. Difference of two marks in a competitive examination works vital and seriously affects the carrier of the student. 5.1 Rule 3.8(A) deals with method of indication of answers in the answer-sheet, of which rule 3.8A(iii) and 3.8A(iv) are relevant for the purpose. The same is reproduced hereinunder,- “(iii) In answer to any question, if a circle is darkened, then for any other answer to the very question, the candidate shall not darken any other circle. (iv) If the circle is darkened less or incompletely, the same shall not be readable by the optical scanner. So in such cases, marks will be given treating the answer as wrong and, therefore, the candidate must darken the circle completely.” 5.1.1 Rule 3.8B provides that no change shall be made after answering once. It is also extracted hereinbelow,- “Candidate shall darken the circle of answer against the question only when the candidate is sure about the right answer to the question. If there is slightest doubt in the mind of the candidate with regard to the answer, it is advisable not to darken any circle of answer (means leave circle blank). If any change is made after having darkened the circle once, the same will not be accepted and such answer will be treated for negative marking as per rules.” 5.1.2 The method of assessment is dealt with in Rule 3.9, which reads as under,- “(i) Each multiple choice question carries 1(one) mark. For each correct answer 1(one) mark will be given. For each correct answer 1(one) mark will be given. (ii) For each wrong answer to the multiple choice question, 0.25(1/4) less marks will be deducted (negative marking) (iii) The candidate/student will be given one less mark (negative marking) if two or more options (answers) out of four are opted for one multiple choice question. (iv) …. (v) ...” 5.2 Operation of the aforesaid rules are required to be understood in its application conjointly. Rule 3.9(iii) speaks of negative marking in case where a candidate has attempted and opted two options. Now, closely examining Rule 3.8A(iv) it is clear that if the answer is shown by darkening the circle in less area or incompletely darkening the same, it is provided that such shall not be readable by the optical scanner. In other words, it is only such answer which is shown by darkening the circle of the option fully, would be readable by optical scanner of the computer. Rule 3.2(iii) stipulates that student shall not darken any other circle if one circle is darkened. 6. Looking at the facts of the case, as is evident from the copy of OMR answer-sheet of the petitioner, the fully darkened circle for question No.114 against option (C). It is this answer duly and properly attempted by the petitioner with choice of multiple option (C). A dot appears in the middle of the circle of option (B). However, the said circle is neither darkened less or incomplete so to say. It is undisputedly not darkened fully. Even if it is treated to be darkened less or incomplete, for the sake of argument, the Rule provides that such answer will not be readable by the optical scanner, then how the same was read to be the wrong answer. It defies logic that on one hand the Rule contemplates that incomplete darkened circle would not be readable and would not be treated as answer, on the other hand, a dot put against option (B) is read to be the wrong answer to deduct the mark. It appears that the petitioner tried to attempt by pen selecting in the first instance option (B) but, then has immediately, changing his mind given up, left the pen, and chose answer (C) by completely darkening the circle. Option (B) was never attempted. In any case, it was never attempted by making circle fully dark. It appears that the petitioner tried to attempt by pen selecting in the first instance option (B) but, then has immediately, changing his mind given up, left the pen, and chose answer (C) by completely darkening the circle. Option (B) was never attempted. In any case, it was never attempted by making circle fully dark. If dot appeared, it was an inadvertent mistake but did not amount to darkening the circle completely for the purpose of answer. Further, the illustrations printed below Rule 3.8B describes how the answers could be considered as invalid answers and warrant for negative marking. In all, eight instances are prescribed. The answering pattern of the petitioner student for question No.114 in the present case does not fall in either of the eight illustrations mentioned in Rule 3.8B. 6.1 The test to be applied is, had there been only a dot in the correct answer applied, whether optical scanner of the computer had treated it to be a correct answer even if the circle was not darkened fully. The answer would be certainly ‘No’, as could be gathered from Rule 3.8A(iv), which in no uncertain terms prescribes that “if the circle is darkened less or incompletely, the same shall not be readable by the optical scanner”. 7. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition is allowed in terms of para-12(A). The respondent authorities are directed to consider the answer of the question No.114 as correctly attempted by the petitioner. Resultantly, the respondent authorities are directed to add the mark accordingly in the result of the petitioner and treat the petitioner having obtained the marks accordingly. Consequences of this to follow. Direct service is permitted. Petition allowed.