- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Manish Ujwal And Others v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Approximately 30,000 candidates sat for entrance examinations in Physics, Chemistry, and Biology conducted on 9-11 May 2005 by Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University for admission to medical and dental courses in Rajasthan. Results were declared on 22-23 May 2005 and first counselling was completed on the basis of those results.
A group of students filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court alleging that several of the answer keys used for evaluation were wrong, leading to erroneous rankings. The Single Judge obtained expert opinions from Jodhpur and Udaipur Universities; nevertheless, the High Court Division Bench ultimately held that it could not be said “with certainty” that six disputed key answers were incorrect and therefore affirmed the Single Judge’s decision.
The aggrieved students appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s finding and seeking correction of the rankings.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether six specified answer keys used in the entrance examinations were demonstrably erroneous.
- Whether the High Court erred in upholding the use of those answer keys and the resulting merit list.
- What remedial measures, if any, should be ordered—particularly regarding re-evaluation, protection of already admitted students, and allocation of costs.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants (Students)
- Contended that six answer keys—one in Physics, two in Chemistry, and three in Biology—were indisputably wrong, as confirmed by experts from two universities.
- Asserted that reliance on incorrect keys distorted their rankings in a highly competitive examination employing negative marking, where even fractions of a mark affect admission.
Respondent 1: Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University
- Through counsel, conceded before the Supreme Court that the six disputed key answers were indeed wrong.
- Raised no objection to re-evaluation but highlighted possible disruption to candidates already admitted after the first counselling.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Mridul Dhar (Minor) v. Union of India, (2005) 2 SCC 65 | Establishes 30-September cut-off date for completion of medical admissions. | The Court considered the cut-off to ensure that its remedial directions did not delay the academic calendar beyond 30-9-2005. |
| Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309 | Court will ordinarily prefer the key answer but cannot penalise students where the key is demonstrably wrong. | Relied upon to hold that students should not suffer for answering correctly when the official key was erroneous. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court noted the University’s unequivocal admission that six key answers were wrong, corroborated by experts from two universities. Citing Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, the Court held that it would be unfair to penalise students for the University’s mistakes.
The Court criticised the High Court for concluding that the correctness of the six keys was uncertain, calling that finding a “serious illegality” because the errors were “palpably and demonstrably” evident.
Balancing fairness to aggrieved students against the need for academic continuity referenced in Mridul Dhar, the Court:
- Ordered re-evaluation of all answer sheets by feeding the correct keys for the six questions.
- Directed completion of this exercise within three days, publication of a fresh merit list for the same number of students, and use of that list for second counselling scheduled from 25-8-2005 onward.
- Clarified that admissions already granted after the first counselling would remain undisturbed to avoid delay in the commencement of courses.
The Court also admonished the University to exercise “abundant caution” in preparing future key answers, hinting at potential disciplinary action in future cases of negligence.
Holding and Implications
APPEALS ALLOWED; HIGH COURT JUDGMENT SET ASIDE.
The University must re-evaluate all candidates’ papers using the corrected keys, publish a revised merit list within three days, and conduct forthcoming counselling on that basis. Admissions already made after the first counselling stand protected. Costs of ₹1,00,000 are imposed on the University, to be kept in a separate account for the welfare of students. No new doctrinal precedent was set, but the decision reinforces existing principles on erroneous answer keys and the need for prompt, equitable remedies in educational testing.
Order
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. Challenge, before us, is to the correctness of the impugned judgment of the High Court whereby the decision of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench on coming to the conclusion that it cannot be said with certainty that the answers to the six questions given in the answer keys were erroneous and incorrect.
4. Briefly, the facts are that the student community filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging their ranking in the entrance tests, which were conducted by Respondent 1 Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University (for short “the University”) on 9-5-2005, 10-5-2005 and 11-5-2005, for admission to medical and dental courses in various colleges in the State of Rajasthan. The grievance of the students was that various key answers on the basis whereof the answer-sheets were evaluated were wrong and, consequently, wrong and erroneous ranking was prepared.
5. On the aforesaid three dates, examinations were held for Physics, Chemistry and Biology subjects respectively. The results were declared on 22-5-2005 on internet and published in the newspapers on 23-5-2005. The total marks allotted to each subject were 300 i.e 900 in total. Each paper had 100 questions of three marks each. The marking system provided for reducing one mark for each wrong answer, which means that negative-marking system was adopted. The answers were objective, giving multiple choices to the students i.e A/B/C/D. The controversy before the High Court and again agitated before this Court by the students after being unsuccessful before the High Court is the wrong key answers pertaining to various answers in all the three subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology. The learned Single Judge sought for the expert opinion of Jodhpur University and Udaipur University. For the present purpose, we are not noticing and considering those key answers in respect whereof there is a difference of opinion. We are considering only those key answers on which there is unanimity. Admittedly, six key answers; one in relation to Physics; two in relation to Chemistry; and three in relation to Biology were incorrect and erroneous. The opinion of the experts of both Jodhpur and Udaipur Universities as regards the said questions was same, according to which the key answers, as provided by the respondent University, were erroneous. The question as to whether in respect of these questions, the key answers provided by the University were erroneous and wrong has not presented any difficulty to this Court in view of a fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the University before us. The learned counsel has admitted that the key answers were wrong. The said six questions and the key answers, as provided, and the correct answers are as under:
S. No. Question Subject Answer as per University key Correct answer 1. P54, Q18, R7, S82 Physics A D 2. P39, Q26, R92, S27 Chemistry A B 3. P40, Q27, R93, S28 Chemistry C B 4. P6, Q26, R46, S31 Biology D B 5. P80, Q90, R85, S55 Biology B D 6. P81, Q91, R86, S56 Biology A D
6. We are not referring to the answers given by the experts from Jodhpur and Udaipur Universities in respect of other questions in view of the difference of opinion and are proceeding only on the basis of the erroneous key answers in relation to the aforesaid six questions. As to the impact of evaluating answers by feeding incorrect keys, at present, it may not be exactly possible to comment, also keeping in view the adoption of negative-marking system and a very tough cut-throat competition amongst the students.
7. We may, however, note as to what the appellants have been tentatively projected. It is as under:
Sl. No. Roll No. Student's name Category Number of questions attempted out of six disputed questions Marks as per answer key Marks as per expert opinion 1. 73159 Manish Ujwal OBC-B 6 729 753 2. 76893 Jeetaman Choudhary OBC-B 4 721 737 3. 74550 Deepika Vaishnav OBC-G 5 710 730 4. 78176 Om Prakash OBC-B 5 736 756 5. 73048 Sudheer Pratap Godhara OBC-B 6 708 732 6. 78107 Surrender Singh Charan OBC-B 4 740 756 7. 73619 Rajendra Kumar OBC-B 5 726 746 8. 72468 Shiwani Gupta GEN-G 5 727 747 9. 73371 Vivek Harsh GEN-B 5 699 719 10. 74575 Purkha Ram OBC-B 6 712 736 11. 73987 Sameera Usman GEN-G 6 711 735 12. 73262 Bharat Veer Singh OBC-B 4 730 746
The aforesaid is only an illustration to show if the figures given above are found to be correct on re-evaluation with correct answers, it can make a considerable difference when rank is dependent even on a fraction of a mark.
8. It seems that nearly thirty thousand students appeared in the examination held between 9-5-2005 and 11-5-2005. It was an entrance examination for admissions in the government medical and dental colleges as also for fifty per cent State quota in the said disciplines in private colleges and not for the remaining management quota. On the basis of the results declared and ranking given, the first counselling for admission to the aforesaid courses in government colleges and fifty per cent State quota in private colleges has already taken place. It is possible that fresh evaluation by feeding correct key answers to the six questions may have adverse impact also on those who may have already secured admission on the basis of the results declared and ranking given by feeding incorrect keys in relation to these questions. Though we are of the view that the appellants in particular and the student community in general, whether one has approached the court or not, should not suffer on account of demonstrably incorrect key answers but, at the same time, if the admissions already granted as a result of first counselling are disturbed, it is possible that the very commencement of the course may be delayed and the admission process for the courses may go beyond 30-9-2005, which is the cut-off date, according to the time-schedule in the Regulations and as per the law laid down by this Court in Mridul Dhar (Minor) v. Union of India (2005) 2 SCC 65. In this view, we make it clear that fresh evaluation of the papers by feeding correct key answers would not affect the students who have secured admissions as a result of the first counselling on the basis of ranking given with reference to the results already declared.
9. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta (1983) 4 SCC 309 considering a similar problem, this Court held that there is an assumption about the key answers being correct and in case of doubt, the Court would unquestionably prefer the key answers. It is for this reason that we have not referred to those key answers in respect whereof there is a doubt as a result of difference of opinion between the experts. Regarding the key answers in respect whereof the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, this Court has held that it would be unfair to penalise the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong. There is no dispute about the aforesaid six key answers being demonstrably wrong and this fact has rightly not been questioned by the learned counsel for the University. In this view, students cannot be made to suffer for the fault and negligence of the University.
10. The High Court has committed a serious illegality in coming to the conclusion that “it cannot be said with certainty that answers to the six questions given in the key answers were erroneous and incorrect”. As already noticed, the key answers are palpably and demonstrably erroneous. In that view of the matter, the student community, whether the appellants or intervenors or even those who did not approach the High Court or this Court, cannot be made to suffer on account of errors committed by the University. For the present, we say no more because there is nothing on record as to how this error crept up in giving the erroneous key answers and who was negligent. At the same time, however, it is necessary to note that the University and those who prepare the key answers have to be very careful and abundant caution is necessary in these matters for more than one reason. We mention few of those; first and paramount reason being the welfare of the student as a wrong key answer can result in the merit being made a casualty. One can well understand the predicament of a young student at the threshold of his or her career if despite giving correct answer, the student suffers as a result of wrong and demonstrably erroneous key answers; the second reason is that the courts are slow in interfering in educational matters which, in turn, casts a higher responsibility on the University while preparing the key answers; and thirdly, in cases of doubt, the benefit goes in favour of the University and not in favour of the students. If this attitude of casual approach in providing key answers is adopted by the persons concerned, directions may have to be issued for taking appropriate action, including disciplinary action, against those responsible for wrong and demonstrably erroneous key answers, but we refrain from issuing such directions in the present case.
11. The second counselling for the admission abovementioned, we are informed, is fixed from 25-8-2005, onwards. We direct re-evaluation of all the questions by feeding correct answers, as abovenoticed, and on that basis correct number of marks obtained by all the students should be assigned and their ranking prepared. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three days from today. List so prepared shall be put on internet soon thereafter as also be published in the newspapers wherein it was earlier published. The second counselling and admissions hereinafter in the medical and dental courses in the State of Rajasthan in government colleges as also in the private colleges insofar as the State quota is concerned would be made on the basis of ranking as per the list which will now be prepared by the University pursuant to the directions of this Court. The merit list shall be prepared for the same number of students as it was prepared earlier while declaring the results on 22-5-2005 and 23-5-2005.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, allow the appeals and impose on Respondent 1 University cost amounting to rupees one lakh, which amount shall be kept by the University in a separate account to be utilised only for the welfare of the student community.
13. The interlocutory application for intervention stands disposed of in the above terms.
Alert