S Vaidyanathan, J. - (1.) The writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to display the provisional answer keys for the drawing test part III paper of B.Arch admission conducted for the JEE(MAIN) April 2020 forthwith and also to facilitate the petitioner/candidate to have the answer key and the responses and also to have a choice of challenging the marks awarded in drawing test Part III B.Arch selection for the year April 2020. Brief Facts in nutshell:
(2.) The petitioner, after completing his Higher Secondary Course, applied for the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) (MAIN) 2020, conducted by the respondents 2 and 3 for admission to Indian Institute of Technology for the course of B.E., B.Arch., and B.Planning. The 3rd Respondent is the authorized/Nodal agency for conducting the said JEE eligibility Examination and he, accordingly, attended the two examinations conducted in January 2020 and April 2020 and secured 96.65 and 95.98 marks respectively in three papers, namely, Part I to Part III. Though he has secured good marks, since the part III answer key has not been published, he is deprived of his right to challenge the same and hence, he is before this Court with T.Kavinraj v. Union of India, Ministry of Human Resource and Development, New Delhi the present writ petition. 2.1. The petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Page No.2 of the Information Bulletin, wherein, in the mode of examination, three different papers were prescribed in respect of B.Arch, namely, Part (I) to (III). The main grievance of the petitioner is that the mode of examination for Part-III is "pen and paper based" (offline) mode to be attempted on drawing sheet to test the drawing aptitude of candidates, for which, there is no key answer. 2.2. According to the petitioner, in Page No.11 of the Bulletin, it has been categorically mentioned that the 3rd respondent would display provisional answer keys and question paper on their Web site. Even though the petitioner has performed well and has scored more marks in the examination held in January 2020, the challenge in this writ petition is to the examination conducted in April 2020. According to him, if the candidates are not satisfied with the answer keys and recorded responses, they may challenge the same by filing online application form by paying a processing fee of Rs.200/- per question. The expert will examine all the challenges received and then a final answer key will be displayed and declared. Admittedly, for part III, there are no guidelines stipulated for awarding marks, more particularly, in stages. The entire answer cannot be said to be bad on account of a small mistake crept in in the drawing and if a portion of the answer is T.Kavinraj v. Union of India, Ministry of Human Resource and Development, New Delhi found to be correct, minimum marks should be awarded. It is stated by the petitioner that as there are no guidelines and there is no key answer for the drawing, the entire selection process is bad and the relief sought for in this writ petition should be granted. 2.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the powers cannot be conferred to the 3rd respondent to testify the merit and ability of candidates, as certain guidelines have been specifically prescribed in the prospectus. Though the petitioner has not questioned the system of evaluation, he questioned the non prescription of key answer in the prospectus with regard to Part-III, namely, drawing and in the absence of key answer in the prospectus, the 3rd third respondent cannot have his own way of correction and allotment of marks to those drawing paper. It is his case that when it is an admitted fact that there are no key answers, the contention in the counter affidavit that if the drawings made by the candidates are verified by two independent subject experts and if the marks given by the two independent experts/examiners differ by more than 25%, it has to be again placed before the Head examiner/experts for scrutiny. This would mean that the entire process of allotment is given to an independent agency, which is not prescribed under the prospectus. Hence, it is the petitioner's case that the writ petition needs to be allowed as prayed for. T.Kavinraj v. Union of India, Ministry of Human Resource and Development, New Delhi
(3.) Ms.L.Victoria Gowri, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, contended that the writ petition is not at all maintainable in terms of the conditions contained in the prospectus with regard to legal jurisdiction, which is extracted hereunder: "All disputes pertaining to the conduct of January JEE (Main)-2020 Examination including Results shall fall within the jurisdiction of Delhi only. The Senior Director (Admin) of the NTA shall be the official by whose designation the NTA may sue or be sued." 3.1. According to her, the Court situated at Delhi alone has got jurisdiction and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. She has stated that the mode of examination prescribed for B.Arch., more particularly, Drawing Test Part III is by way pen and paper based offline mode to be attempted on Drawing Sheet. Since such conduct of examination is offline mode, the key answers will not be available and that the petitioner cannot insist that there should be a guideline for the experts to award marks in stages. The prospectus cannot be read in isolation and when there are no key answers for the drawing paper, nobody can question as to the allotment of marks to candidates and no one can also insist that the key answer should be published for the subjective paper. The respondents have already appointed experts for correcting the answers as well as for the purpose of allotment of marks. T.Kavinraj v. Union of India, Ministry of Human Resource and Development, New Delhi 3.2. The learned Assistant Solicitor General contended that when the petitioner participated in the previous examinations in the month of January 2020, there was no key answer for the subjective paper and therefore, the petitioner is aware of the full system of conduct of examinations. The evaluation of drawings is being verified by two subject experts independently and if the scores differ by more than 25%, they are scrutinized by a head expert/examiner and if the difference between the raw marks given by the two examiners is less than 25%, then average is taken. ;