Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9
PETITIONER:
KANPUR UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SAMIR GUPTA AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT27/09/1983
BENCH:
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)
BENCH:
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)
PATHAK, R.S.
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)
CITATION:
1983 AIR 1230 1984 SCR (1) 73
1983 SCC (4) 309 1983 SCALE (2)477
ACT:
Entrance Examinations to courses of study-Multiple
Choice Objective type Tests-Combined Pre-medical Test for
admission to medical colleges in U.P. Whether correctness of
key-answers to questions set in the examination open to
challenge ?
HEADNOTE:
The appellant-University held the "Combined Pre-Medical
Test" for admission to the seven medical colleges in U.P.
during the year 1982. The pattern of examination adopted was
known as the "Multiple Choice Objective type" test according
to which a paper containing 100 questions with four
alternative answers for each question was set in each of the
four subjects prescribed for the test and the candidates
were asked to tick the correct answer from out of the four
alternatives given. The marking of answer-book was done by a
computer into which had been fed the key-answers supplied by
the paper-setters. When the University published the key-
answers along with the result of the test, the respondents
who had appeared in the test and whose names did not figure
in the list of successful candidates filed writ petitions
contending that the key-answers published by the University
in regard to three questions were wrong, that the answers
ticked by them in regard to those three questions were
correct and that if their answer-books were reassessed
correctly they would be entitled to be entitled to the
M.B.B.S. course. The High Court accepted their contention
and allowed the petitions.
Council for the University contended that no challenge
should be allowed to be made to the correctness of a key-
answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong.
Dismissing the appeals,
HELD: Normally, the key-answer furnished by the paper-
setter and accepted by the University as correct, should not
be allowed to be challenged. The key-answer should be
assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and it
should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of
reasoning or by a process of rationalisation but must be
clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be
such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9
particular subject would regard as correct. [81 D, H, 82 A-
B]
74
In the instant case, the contention of the University
is falsified by a large number of acknowledged text-books,
which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those text books
leave no room for doubt that the answers given by the
students are correct and the key-answers are incorrect.
Since the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, 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. [82 B-D]
The publication of the key-answer has unravelled an
unhappy state of affairs to which the University and the
State Government must find a solution. The State Government
should compile under its own auspices a text book which
should be prescribed for student desirous of appearing for
the Combined Pre-medical Test. A system should be devised
for moderating the key-answers furnished by the paper-
setters. If English questions have to be translated into
Hindi it is not enough to appoint an expert in Hindi
language as a translator. The translator must know the
meaning of the scientific terminology and the art of
translation. In a system of "Multiple Choice Objective-type
Test" care must be taken to see that questions having an
ambiguous import are not set in the papers. Whenever the
attention of the University is drawn to any defect in a key-
answer or any ambiguity in a question set in the
examination, prompt and timely decision must be taken by the
University to declare that the suspect question will be
excluded from the paper and no marks assigned to it. [81
F,82 E, G-H,83 A-B]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.4092-
4115 of 1983.
Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order
dated the 24th February, 1983 of the Allahabad High Court
(Lucknow Bench) in Writ Petition Nos. 4773-74/82, 4827,
5024, 5216, 5314, 5716-5717, 5724,5816, 5817,5818, 5819,
5821, 6029, 6067, 6069, 6102,6103,6389, of 1982 & 9,
146,230, 277 of 1983.
AND
Civil Appeal Nos. 4068 4091 of 1983.
Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order
dated the 24th February, 1983 of the Allahabad High Court
(Lucknow Bench) in Civil Mis Writ Petition Nos. 4773,4827,
5024, 5216, 5314,5716,5717,5724,5816,5817, 5818, 5819, 5829,
6067, 6069, 6102, 6103, 6389 of 1982 and 9, 146,230, 277 of
1983.
In Civil Appeal No. 4092 - 4115 of 1983
S.N. Kacker, Mrs. Shobha Dixit and Kulsherstha for the
Appellants.
75
R.K. Garg, R.K. Jain, M. Nitin Mohan Popli, Santosh
Sethi and Ms. Sangeeta Agarwal for Respondents in CA. 4092
of 1983.
E.C. Aggarwala Mahavir Singh and K.K. Gupta for
Respondents.
Robin Mitra, Anil Kumar Gupta, and Brij Bhushan, for
Respondents in CA. 4096 of 1983.
E.C. Agarwala, Vijay K. Pandita and R. Satish for
Respondents.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9
In Civil Appeal Nos. 4068-91 of 1983:
Mrs. Shoba Dixit and Kapil Sibal for the Appellants.
M.M. Kshatriya, E.C. Aggarwala, Robin Mitra, K.K.
Gupta, M.B. Lal, Anil Kumar Gupta and Brij Bhushan for the
Respondents.
M.M. Kshatriya for Respondent No. 1.
Mohan Pandey for Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered
CHANDRACHUD, C.J. These appeals raise a some what
awkward question: If a paper-setter commits an error while
indicating the correct answer to a question set by him, can
the students who answer that question correctly be failed
for the reason that though their answer is correct, it does
not accord with the answer supplied by the paper-setter to
the University as the correct answer ? The answer which the
paper-setter supplies to the University as the correct
answer is called the ’key answer’. No one can accuse the
teacher of not knowing the correct answer to the question
set by him But it seems that, occasionally, not enough care
is taken by the teachers to set questions which are free
from ambiguity and to supply key answers which are correct
beyond reasonable controversy. The keys supplied by the
paper-setters in these cases raised more questions than they
solved.
The respondents in these Appeals applied for admission
to the Medical Colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh. There
are 7 Medical Colleges in the State of U.P., to which
admission is granted on the basis of the result of a
’Combined Pre-Medical Test’ which is held
76
in pursuance of the orders passed by the State Government
under section 8 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973.
The Government nominates one of the Universities in the
State for holding the Test every year. In the year 1982, the
Kanpur University, the appellant herein, was entrusted with
the task of holding the Test. By any standard, it is a
stupendous task because 20,000 applications are received
every year for admission to a total number of 779 seats in
the 7 Medical Colleges, out of which 50% are reserved seats
and the remaining 50% are open. Physics, Chemistry, Zoology
and Botany are the four subjects which are prescribed for
the Test. One paper is set for each subject and the pattern
of the examination is what is called the ’Multiple choice of
objective-type test’. For persons belonging to yester
generations, this is a newfangled concept. Hundred questions
are set in each paper and four alternative answers are
indicated against each question. The candidates are required
to tick the correct answer from out of those four. If he
ticks the correct answer, he secures 3 marks and if a
candidate ticks an incorrect answer, he loses I mark. Each
paper is of a duration of 3 hours.
So far so good. The snag lies in determining which out
of the four suggested answers is the correct answer. That
duty is naturally assigned to the paper-setter, who is
required to supply to the University the correct answer to
each question, called the ’key answer’. The difficulty
involved in evaluating a very large number of answer-books
is solved by the State Government, quite successfully, by
computerising the result. The key answers are fed into a
computer and the marking computerised.
The difficulty which arose in these cases is not due to
the failure of the computer, which is quite encouraging. The
habit of man is to blame the machine. The difficulty arose
because the key answers furnished by the paper-setters
turned out to be wrong. The students got to know the key
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9
answers out of the generosity of the University. If wanted,
rightly, to be frank and fair. Therefore, it published the
key answers along with the result of the test. Respondents,
whose names did not figure in the list of successful
candidates, filed writ petitions in the High Court of
Allahabad, contending that the answers ticked by them were
correct and the key answers wrong. The High Court has
accepted their contention and that is how the Kanpur
University has come to file these appeals. There cannot be a
more telling instance of ’Shishyat Ichhet Parajam’ (Wish for
defeat
77
from your pupil). But the Gurus contend that the Shishyas
are wrong and do not deserve to win.
There is no controversy over the questions set in the
Physics paper. The controversy arises in regard to three
questions, one each in the papers in Chemistry, Zoology and
Botany. We will deal with those three questions one by one,
without making our own guess as to which is the correct
answer. Any way, we cannot indicate the true answer to these
appeals by merely ticking off one of the two options open to
us, either to allow or to dismiss the appeals. Ticking is
the privilege of the new generation of students. We have to
give reasons in support of our answer.
Question No. 24 of the Chemistry paper reads thus:
"24. The theory of Electrolytic Dissociation was
given by-
1. Faraday
2. Kohlraush
3. Arrehenius
4. Ostwald."
Each question in each paper is set both in English and
Hindi, not one below the other but, there are two question
papers for each subject, one of which is set in English and
the other in Hindi. We do not know which is the original
version and which the translation but it is common ground
that one is the translation of the other.
The Hindi version of Question No. 24, as
transliterated, reads thus:
"Vidyut Apaghatan ka sidhant kis Vegyanik ne diya
tha ?
1. Faraday
2. Kohlrausch
3. Arrehenius
4. Ostwald."
78
The contention of the University, which accords with
the key answer, is that the third alternative furnishes the
correct answer, namely, "Arrehenius’, whether the question
is read in English or in Hindi. There is no dispute that
option No. 3 is the correct answer to the question set in
English, that is to say, that the theory of Electrolytic
Dissociation was given by Arrehenius. The contention of the
students, who are apparently very clever, is that the
correct answer to the Hindi version of the question is
’Faraday’, which is the first alternative. Their argument is
that the English Question No. 24 and Hindi Question No. 24
do not carry the same sense and one is not the exact
translation of the other. According to these well-taught
students, ’Electrolytic’ means ’Vidyut apaghatan’, whereas
’Electrolytic Dissociation means ’Vidyut apaghataniya
Viyojan’, and in the Hindi version of the question, the word
’Dissociation’ does not find its equivalent.
With their born knowledge of Hindi, the learned Judges
of the Allahabad High Court have gone into the linguistic
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9
niceties with some proficiency. Their judgment shows that in
Medical Sciences Glossary I, which is published by the
Standing Commission for Scientific and Technical
Terminology, Ministry of Education, Government of India, the
Hindi equivalent of the word ’Electrolysis’ is given as
’Vidyut apaghatana’ and of the word ’Dissociation’ as
’Viyojan’. The High Court has quoted several acknowledged
text books in Hindi which show that though the law of
’Electrolysis’ was first formulated by Faraday in 1834, the
theory of Electrolytic Dissociation’ was evolved by
Arrehenius 1887 which is known as ’Ionic-dissociation
Theory’. Amongst the authorities quoted by the High Court is
a text-book prescribed for Intermediate classes by the
’Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P.’ The High Court has
accepted the respondents’ contention that there is a ’marked
difference’ in the English and Hindi version of question No.
24.
The case of the respondents is that they tick-marked
the answer to Question No. 24 as it reads in Hindi and not
as it reads in English. Whether the respondents read the
Hindi question paper or the one in English is incapable of
verification and there is no means of contradicting that
contention. They had the option to answer the question paper
as set in English or in Hindi. There is no reason to
disbelieve them when they say that they read the Hindi
version. Hindi is the medium of instruction in U.P., until a
late
79
stage of scholastic education. Besides, the tick-mark, being
a symbol, reads the same in English and Hindi.
In support of its contention that the English and Hindi
versions of the question convey the same meaning, the
University produced the opinion of two experts, Prof. R.P.
Singh of the Department of Chemistry, Delhi University, and
Dr. B.R. Agarwal, an ex-Vice-Chancellor. These two gentlemen
are undoubtedly well-versed in their speciality but the
controversy turns more on the knowledge of Hindi than of
chemistry. Dr. Agarwal has himself stated in his opinion
that: "Even now the Hindi terminology is not so well defined
as in English and the Hindi terminology for the same English
concepts differs from author to author". In any event, as
stated in the judgment of the High Court, the standard text-
books which the students consult, or are expected to
consult, make a distinction between ’Vidyut apaghatan’ on
the one hand and ’Vidyut apaghataniya viyojan’ on the other.
We must, therefore, uphold the finding of the High Court
that the key answer to question No. 24 is correct in so far
as the English version is concerned but that, the correct
answer to the Hindi version of that question is the 1st
option, namely, ’Faraday’.
Coming next to the Zoology paper, Question No. 23 reads
thus:
"23. Which one of the following was not present in
free form at the time life originated ?
1. Hydrozen
2. Oxygen
3. Water
4. Ammonia"
Whereas the students assert that the 2nd alternative,
namely, ’Oxygen’ furnishes the correct answer to the
question, the key answer shows that the correct answer is
’Ammonia . Here again, as pointed out by the High Court, the
standard text-books shows that ’Oxygen’ was not present in
free form at the time when life originated. The famous book
on Biology by Claude A. Villas, while dealing with the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9
subject ’The Origin of Life’, says: "Most authorities now
agree that the earth was very hot and molten when it was
first formed and
80
that conditions consistent with life appeared on the earth
only perhaps three billion years ago". Two authors of
international repute, Tracy I. Starer and Rober L. Usinger,
say in their book "General Zoology’ that "At some time more
than a billion years ago temperature and moisture conditions
became suitable for life. There was no free oxygen, but the
atmosphere contained methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water
vapor". Two Indian authors, Dr. Ramesh Gupta and Virbala
Rastogi, have expressed the same view in their respective
books ’Aadhunik Jantu Vigyan’ and ’Madhyamik Jantu Vigyan’.
The University produced the opinion of Shri H. S.
Vishnoi of the Department of Zoology, University of Delhi.
We agree with the High Court that though Shri Vishnoi is a
knowledgeable person in his speciality, he was evidently
under some confusion while giving his opinion. Profundity
sometimes creates confusion. In the very opening sentence of
his opinion, Shri Vishnoi says: "The point is about free
ammonia". That is not the point. The question which the
students were asked to answer was not "about free ammonia"
but which of the four alternatives was not present in free
form when life originated. Shri Vishnoi has also not given
specific citations from the two books to which he has
referred in support of his opinion. We therefore agree with
the conclusion of the High Court that the answer to question
No. 23 in the Zoology paper is ’oxygen’ as contended for by
the respondents and not ’Ammonia’ as stated in the key
answer.
Question No. 66 in the Botany paper has an interesting
story of its own. That question reads as follows:
"66. The net gain of A.T.P. Molecules in
Glycolysis is
(1) O
(2) 2
(3) 4
(4) 8"
Whereas the students contended that the 2nd alternative
furnishes the correct answer, the key answer which was fed
to the computer
81
was alternative No. 4. Here also, the various text-books
cited by the students tend to show that the key answer fed
into the computer was not the correct answer. The High Court
has copiously referred to the standard text-books on the
subject. We need not do so since, the more interesting part
of this controversy is the expert opinion of Shri Arya
Bhushan Gupta which was filed by the University in the High
Court. According to that opinion, the correct answer to
Question No. 66 is neither the 2nd option nor the 4th but
the 3rd. In other words, according to Shri Gupta, the net
gain of A.T.P. molecules in Glycolysis is neither 2 as
contended by the students, nor 8 as mentioned in the key
answer but 4 which is nobody’s case except the expert’s.
Thus, the case of the University is demolished by its own
expert. In these circumstances, we cannot find fault with
the High Court for holding that the key answer is not the
correct answer to Question No. 66.
The findings of the High Court raise a question of
great importance to the student community. Normally, one
would be inclined to the view, especially if one has been a
paper setter and an examiner, that the key answer furnished
by the paper setter and accepted by the University as
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9
correct, should not be allowed to be challenged. One way of
achieving it is not to publish the key answer at all. If the
University had not published the key answer along with the
result of the test, no controversy would have arisen in this
case. But that is not a correct way of looking at these
matters which involve the future of hundreds of students who
are aspirants for admission to professional courses. If the
key answer were kept secret in this case, the remedy would
have been worse than the disease because, so many students
would have had to suffer the injustice in silence. The
publication of the key answer has unravelled an unhappy
state of affairs to which the University and the State
Government must find a solution. Their sense of fairness in
publishing the key answer has given them an opportunity to
have a closer look at the system of examinations which they
conduct. What has failed is not the computer but the human
system.
Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University,
contended that no challenge should be allowed to be made to
the correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it,
it is wrong. We agree that the key-answer should be assumed
to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it
should not be held to be wrong
82
by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of
rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be
wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body
of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as
correct. The contention of the University is falsified in
this case by a large number of acknowledged text-books,
which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those text-books
leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the
students is correct and the key answer is incorrect.
Students who have passed their Intermediate Board
Examination are eligible to appear for the entrance Test for
admission to the Medical Colleges in U.P. Certain books are
prescribed for the Intermediate Board Examination and such
knowledge of the subjects as the students have is derived
from what is contained in those text-books. Those text-books
support the case of the students fully. If this were a case
of doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred the key
answer. But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, 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.
If the State Government wants to avoid a recurrence of
such lapses, it should compile under its own auspices a
text-book which should be prescribed for students desirous
of appearing for the combined Pre-Medical Test. Education
has more than its fair share of politics, which is the bane
of our Universities. Numerous problems are bound to arise in
the compilation of such a text-book for, various applicants
will come forward for doing the job and forces and counter-
forces will wage a battle on the question as to who should
be commissioned to do the work. If the State can succeed in
overcoming those difficulties, the argument will not be open
to the students that the answer contained in the text-book
which is prescribed for the test is not the correct answer.
Secondly, a system should be devised by the State Government
for moderating the key answers furnished by the paper
setters. Thirdly, if English questions have to be translated
into Hindi, it is not enough to appoint an expert in the
Hindi language as a translator. The translator must know the
meaning of the scientific terminology and the art of
translation. Fourthly, in a system of ’Multiple Choice
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9
Objective-type test’, care must be taken to see that
questions having an ambiguous import are not set in the
papers. That kind of system of examination involves merely
the tick-marking of the correct answer. It
83
leaves no scope for reasoning or argument. The answer is
’yes’ or ’no’. That is why the questions have to be clear
and unequivocal. Lastly, if the attention of the University
is drawn to any defect in a key answer or any ambiguity in a
question set in the examination, prompt and timely decision
must be taken by the University to declare that the suspect
question will be excluded from the paper and no marks
assigned to it.
There was some argument before us as to the nature of
the relief which can be granted to the respondents. It was
contended by Smt. Dixit, who appears on behalf of the State
of U.P., that six of the respondents have been already
admitted to the B.D.S. Course and, therefore, they should
not now be admitted to the M.B.B.S. course. We cannot accept
this submission since, those students sought admission to
the Dental course only because they were not admitted to the
M.B.B.S. course. And they were denied admission to the
M.B.B.S. course wrongly.
Twenty-seven students in all were concerned with these
proceedings, out of whom 8 were admitted to the B.D.S.
course, 3 were admitted to the M.B.B.S. course last year
itself in place of the students who dropped out and 5 have
succeeded in getting admission this year. Omitting 8 of the
respondents who have been already admitted to the M.B.B.S.
course, the remaining 19 shall have to be given admission as
directed by the High Court. If the key answer was not wrong
as it has turned out to be, they would have succeeded in
getting admission. In view of the findings of the High
Court, the question naturally arose as to how the marks were
to be allotted to the respondents for the three questions
answered by them and which were wrongly assessed by the
University. The High Court has held that the respondents
would be entitled to be given 3 marks for each of the
questions correctly ticked by them, and in addition they
would be entitled to 1 mark for those very questions, since
1 mark was deducted from their total for each of the
questions wrongly answered by them. Putting it briefly, such
of the respondents as are found to have attempted the three
questions or any of them would be entitled to an addition of
4 marks per question. If the answer-books are reassessed in
accordance with this formula, the respondents would be
entitled to be admitted to the M.B.B.S. course, about which
there is no dispute. Accordingly, we confirm the directions
given by the High Court in regard to the reassessment of the
particular questions and the admission of the respondents to
the M.B.B.S. course.
84
There is one student, Miss Reeta Gupta, whose grievance
is that if she is given additional marks as directed by the
High Court, her place will go higher up in the merit list,
as a consequence whereof she would be eligible for admission
to the Medical College situated in her place of residence.
Smt. Dixit says that Miss Gupta should apply to the
Government in this behalf and the Government could consider
her application. We do not think that there is any
justification for us to interfere with the order passed by
the High Court on this score also.
We understand that some petitions are pending in the
High Court on these very points. Those petitions will be
disposed of by the High Court in the light of this judgment,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9
provided that the petitioners therein make out a case for
interference as the students in these appeals have done. We
however, direct that no fresh petitions should be
entertained by the High Court and, of course, none will be
entertained by us hereafter on the questions involved in
these appeals arising out of the test which was held in
1982. The new academic session is due to commence within the
next few days and these questions cannot be allowed to be
raised in a leisurely fashion so as to disorganise the
scheme of fresh admissions.
In the result, these appeals are dismissed with costs.
H.L.C. Appeals dismissed.
85