ANIL KUMAR MAKROO Vs. STATE OF J&K
LAWS(J&K)-1986-9-8
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on September 19,1986

Anil Kumar Makroo Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JANDK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) PETITIONERS case is that applications were invited by a Notification dated 20.6.1985 for admission to the first year MBBS Course in the Govt. Medical Colleges at Srinagar and Jammu commencing from the year 1986. Eligibility for filing the applications was also prescribed. Admission was to be made on the basis of written entrance test which would comprise of two papers of Higher Secondary Part II/TDC Part I Standard of the J&K Board of School Education one relating to the subject of Physics and Chemistry and the other Biology and English Paper was to carry 103 marks and the other subjects carried 150 marks. Candidates also were required to appear in Viva -voce test for which method was prescribed in the notification the In pursuance of the aforesaid notification the petitioner is said to have applied and appeared in the entrance test. He was, however not selection list of 147 candidates was released which included 74 candidates from open merit category and 73 candidates from reserved category. Since the petitioner was not selected therefore ha seems to have applied for inspection of his papers and on inspection he found that question 2 (a) of Physics Paper I (Part I) though answered by the petitioner was not at all marked by the examiner. Question 2 (a) of Physics Paper I reads as under: - "A magnet vibrating horizontally takes 6 seconds to complete one vibration at a place where dip is 45 and the total intensity is 0.4 guase. Find the number of vibrations per minute is would make at a place where the dip is 60 and the total intensity is 0.5 guase........ " Petitioner contends that if this question was marked by the examiner, he would have obtained more marks in the paper which would entitle him to grouped with the selected candidates and he would have been included in the list of selected candidates. Petitioner is said to have secured 52.80 points i. e. 40,80 points in the entrance test and 12 points in viva voce test. If the unmarked question would have been given marks by the examiner, petitioner would have secured more points in the written test and he would be able to secure admission to the college because the last selected candidate in the open merit category had secured 54.34 poi its only. Petitioner has challenged the percentage of reserved category also has taken some other points, but at the hiring of the writ petition, Mr. Qayoom appearing for the petitioner confined his arguments only to the question relating to the deletion of question 2 (a) in the Physics Paper I and the said question not having been marked by the examiner, which according to him has deprived him of more marks and he has been denied opportunity to seek admission in the Medical College.
(2.) REPLY affidavit was filed by the Under Secretary to the Govt. General Department. In reply to the controversy which is now narrowed down it is contended by the respondents that in solving the question 2 (a) of the Physics Paper -1 candidates were required to use Calculators/Log tables. Representations were received by the Selection Committee informing them that in certain examination halls Calculators/Log Tables were used and in others these were not allowed to be used. The Selection committee for the sake of equal treatment and uniformity decided to delete the said part of question No. 2 of Physics Paper -1 which carried 16 marks. These marks were re -allotted to the other questions of the same paper of Physics. The overall position of the total marks which were earmarked for the paper remained the same. This decision is said to have been taken before the "valuators had stated the work of evaluation.
(3.) THREE questions are said to have been given in Physics Paper I. Question No. 1 comparised of three parts, and question No. 2 comprised of five parts and question No. 3 comprised of five parts. The original position as regards allotment of marks to each question and part thereof is as under: Ref. to Q. No. Marks allotted or part thereof initially 1 2 Q. 1 (a) 16 (b) 16 (c) 18 Q. 2 (a) 16 (b) 18 (c) 16 Q. 3 (a) 10 (b) 10 (c) 10 (d) 10 (e) 10 Thereafter question 2 (a) was deleted and after its deletion marks of that part were distributed among question No. 1 and 3 and part (b) and (c) of question No. 2. The distribution was made in the following manner and the changed position is as under: Addl. marks out of 16 Total marks after marks of part (a) of reallotment Q. No. 2. Q. 1 (a) 2 18 (b) 2 18 (c) 2 20 Q. 2 (a) - - - - (b) 2 20 (c) 3 19 Q. 3 (a) 1 11 (b) 1 11 (c) 1 11 (d) 1 11 (e) 1 11 ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.